Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Noise Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
First, I must explain that immediately after speaking I shall seek the good will of the House and yourself, Madam Speaker, as I need to leave for my constituency for the funeral of my friend and constituent Philip Lawrence at 10.30 am in Ealing abbey, for whose family the Abbot of Ealing and I have collected a fund of £112,000. In my absence, my hon. Friends and sponsors of the Bill, the hon. Members for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), will keep a watching brief. Upon my return, I will pick up from them the points that have been made. Further points can be dealt with in Committee. I hope that that is acceptable to the House.
It is a great honour to present this Bill. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that he would be agreeable to the Bill's provisions being extended to Northern Ireland. I am sure that all hon. Members will be pleased about that.
This is a Bill
To make provision about noise emitted from dwellings at night; about the forfeiture and confiscation of equipment used to make noise unlawfully; and for connected purposes.
It is my intention that the Bill will curb and, I hope, eradicate the intolerable problem of neighbourhood noise. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) said in a ministerial reply in March last year:
Inconsiderate noisy neighbours can cause extreme distress and suffering to many."—[Official Report, 27 March 1995; Vol. 257, c.469.]
I express my most sincere thanks to two newspapers that have aided me in my campaign against neighbourhood noise—the Evening Standard, for allowing me to use the newspaper to communicate with people to ascertain upon which issues they felt strongly; and, secondly, The Mail on Sunday for its long campaign against noise nuisance. That newspaper stated on 18 September 1994 that neighbourhood noise is
an intolerable tyranny imposed on many by a thoughtless few. And—unchecked it can lead to violence, even murder.
Hon. Members are aware of the problems caused by noise nuisance and no doubt such matters have been brought to their attention over many years.
I refer to a case in my constituency to highlight the plight suffered by quite innocent people. Clare road in Greenford is a residential road that would not be out of

place in any typical suburban constituency. It is characterised by a peaceful and diverse community. Last July, a substantial deputation of people from that road came to my surgery to voice their complaints about intolerable noise from one house, in a row of hundreds, and the fact that the local council was failing to assist them to deal with the problem.
The residents' right to a peaceful existence had been cruelly shattered by the selfishness of one household. In the problem house, music was blasting out until the early hours, noisy parties were commonplace most evenings, and the sheer volume of people using the house caused a mighty and intolerable racket for the good residents of Clare road. Following a concerted effort by those residents and myself, the noisy tenants were finally removed last week—some seven months on. For more than six months, the residents of Clare road were subjected to an intolerable tyranny of sleepless nights and anxious days. They dreaded going home after work—think of it. My Bill will solve that problem. Had the council been empowered with the ability to impose on-the-spot fines, or the even stronger powers that my Bill will confer, I am certain that there would have been a swifter end to the whole affair.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in extending the Bill to Northern Ireland. Does he accept that authorities which have said that the Bill is a knee-jerk reaction have not been living in the real world and dealing with their constituents?

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman, who is sponsoring my Bill, is absolutely right.
The Noise Bill creates a new offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to deal with excessive noise from domestic dwellings at night. The Bill introduces for the first time an objective level against which noise can be assessed. It also clarifies powers to confiscate equipment causing severe noise, under either the Bill or the statutory nuisance regime in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Enforcing the statutory nuisance regime can be time-consuming and can lead to the dissatisfaction of the local authority and complainants. Concerns about the effectiveness of the existing controls and the rising number of complaints, especially about noise from domestic premises, led me to realise that there was a need for additional legislation. That was also very much the conclusion of the Department of the Environment's review of the effectiveness of neighbour noise controls.
The Bill aims to make it easier for noise complaints made during night hours to be resolved quickly and effectively, but recognises that not all local authorities have the same problems and so might not be able to justify providing a night-noise complaint service for so few cases. Clause 1 therefore allows, but does not require, the local authority to adopt the new offence. I hope that most authorities will adopt it, and I believe that the London borough of Ealing plans to do so.
Where district and unitary authorities have adopted the provisions, clause 2 puts a duty on them to take reasonable steps to investigate complaints of excessive noise from a dwelling house between 11 pm and 7 am. That is an duty additional to the requirements placed on all district and unitary authorities to investigate


complaints made under statutory nuisance legislation. If a local authority officer considers the noise excessive and that it exceeds or might exceed the permitted level, he may serve a warning notice. The officer should decide whether the noise may exceed the level and whether to measure it. The permitted noise level is covered in other clauses.
Clause 3 provides for the service of a warning notice. Where possible, the notice must be served on the person responsible for the noise. However, where the person cannot be found, the notice can be served by leaving it at the dwelling where the noise is being emitted. The notice will warn that any person responsible for noise emitted from the dwelling, including its garden, may be guilty of an offence, which can come into effect not less than 10 minutes after the serving of the notice and is valid until 7 am the following morning.
Clause 4 sets out the new night noise offence. Where a warning notice has been served and the noise exceeds the permitted level in the period of the notice, the person responsible for the noise is guilty of an offence. A person found guilty of an offence can be fined up to level 3 on the standard scale, which is currently £1,000.
Clauses 5 to 7 provide the technical basis for the objective standard and its measurement. Clause 5 enables the Secretary of State for the Environment to give directions to determine the permitted noise level. I am clear that the level should be based on the World Health Organisation guidelines, which in 1980 stated:
a level of less than 35 dB is recommended to preserve the restorative process of sleep".
An objective test is necessary because it enables the offence to be proved more easily and quickly than the statutory nuisance offence. The raising of the standard also represents a reasonable objective standard that would confirm a serious neighbour noise problem and be likely to cause sleep disturbance.
Clause 6 ensures that the equipment must be approved by the Secretary of State, which is very important. Clause 7 requires verification that the noise has been measured in accordance with any specified conditions and with an approved machine. Clauses 8 and 9 allow a local authority to operate a fixed penalty notice for an offence committed under clause 4. The fixed penalty sum is set initially at £40.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Hear, hear.

Mr. Greenway: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support.
The sum may be varied by order of the Secretary of State. Anyone who receives a fixed penalty notice has 14 days in which to pay, otherwise he or she will face prosecution. The fixed penalty will be especially helpful to local authorities since they will not have to take every offender to court. It is not, however, appropriate for gross or persistent cases, where prosecution is more suitable.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that a £40 penalty is derisory and must be increased considerably when—we hope—the Bill becomes law?

Mr. Greenway: Although I accept that, £40 is a reasonable starting level and we should see how it goes. I am looking for a much tougher fine of—perhaps—about £100.
Clause 10 and the schedule give local authorities the power to seize noise equipment used in the emission of noise that leads to an offence. If entry to the premises is refused, the local authority may apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant. The schedule provides for the retention of noise-making equipment and allows the court to order forfeiture of equipment. The clause also clarifies the basis of confiscation and forfeiture of noise-making equipment by local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland where that equipment has been used in the commission of a noise offence that is a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act. I am sure that the Bill will be very welcome for that alone.
The remainder of the Bill is mainly technical. Clause 11 provides definition and enables regulations to be made. Clause 12 provides protection from personal liability for local authority members, officers and persons authorised to take action under the Bill. Clause 13 relates to financial matters, and clause 14, the short title, deals with commencement and the extent of its jurisdiction.
At present, local authorities handle complaints about excessive noise by using the statutory nuisance controls of part III of the 1990 Act. Domestic premises are the largest source of complaints about noise, accounting for two thirds of all complaints in 1992–93. It is important to note that, between 1983–84 and 1992–93, complaints about noise from domestic premises more than trebled; the problem is worsening every day.
Having stated that the Bill is primarily concerned with domestic noise, it is necessary to distinguish further what type of noise I hope the Bill will address. Although, potentially, all types of neighbour noise at night could be investigated, the major source of complaints is noise made by amplified music and—perhaps—parties. The Bill is necessary because the existing statutory nuisance regime is regarded by many noise sufferers as too lengthy and uncertain a remedy, which is undoubtedly the case.
The number of complaints about noise, especially domestic noise, and public concerns expressed through organisations such as the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign, the media and public correspondence is growing. In 1993–94, there were 131,153 complaints about noise from domestic premises.
It is vital to balance people's rights to carry out activities in their own homes with the ability to protect those who are affected by the noisy and sometimes inconsiderate action of their neighbours. It is also necessary to underline that the Bill is not intended to be a killjoy. Obviously, tastes vary, and one man's music is another man's noise.
Hon. Members might be asking themselves why the Bill applies solely to noise emitted from private dwellings and not noise from pubs, audible bird scarers, church bells, and so on. The simple answer is that statutory nuisance legislation will still deal with noise from all those sources. The additional offence is intended to provide a more immediate response to the problems of domestic noise.
All hon. Members will recognise that music systems are much louder and cheaper than they were 10 years ago, and therefore more pervasive. I remind the House that the type of music that is now most popular is very different from the music of 10 years ago. I am talking about dance music, which is characterised by a heavy, loud, repetitive bass drum beat. Not only is this music almost invariably


played at an excessively loud volume, but the beat has a strong reverberation which passes easily through neighbouring walls in houses and neighbouring ceilings in flats. Is this music a passing trend that will not be with us in a year's time? No. The music is played widely in clubs around the world and, as a genre, is now indisputably the nation's favourite. It is so popular that different branches of the music have been developed, including jungle, handbag, hard core and techno. [Laughter.] One has to have some knowledge of these things. This music and a sophisticated hi-fi operated by a selfish soul are a devastating combination.
It was that combination that led a Mr. Purbrick, as reported in The Mail on Sunday, to knock on his neighbour's door to complain about the volume of the music being emitted from that dwelling. Mr. Purbrick was greeted by a hail of punches and kicks, eventually being thrown down a full flight of stairs. He died 12 hours later from massive internal injuries. Mr. Purbrick's brother said:
I believe that if there had been a quicker response to my brother's complaints about the constant noise he had to put up with, he'd still be alive today. John paid the penalty for making a basic human request for some peace and quiet—with his life.
It is as serious as that.
The powers incorporated in my Bill are purely adoptive ones—that is, local authorities are not compelled to adopt the recommendations of the Bill. However, I very much hope and believe that my Bill will be widely adopted if it becomes law.
Hon. Members may be wondering why the benchmark has been set at 35 dB. Thirty-five decibels is typical of night-time noise levels in bedrooms with single glazed windows fronting busy suburban roads. In addition, information derived from the national noise incident survey carried out by the building research establishment in 1990 suggests that 90 per cent. of the population of England and Wales is expected to experience noise levels of less than 35 dB inside rooms on the front aspect of their dwelling at night. That, combined with the advice supplied by the World Health Organisation, shows that an objective standard of 35 dB is a fair and just benchmark.
The message of the Bill is clear; noisy neighbours will be prosecuted. I want the Bill to help to eradicate the problem of noisy neighbours, but I do not want there to be any unjust prosecutions. Let us consider a case in which the problem is in the construction of the dwelling. There will be a defence by which people can show a reasonable excuse to explain why they were unable to reduce the noise below the specified level. People will have to give a proper explanation, but that could help them.
We must also consider whether the new offence will create a benchmark for all noise cases and so make it difficult to prosecute statutory nuisance cases where the noise is lower, but is still causing a nuisance. To that point, the simple answer is that the criterion for the new offence is quite different from the existing statutory nuisance provisions.
It is not my intention that the general public should have to know when the noise levels have been exceeded. It is for an environmental health officer to assess the noise against the suggested standard for 10 minutes after being summoned by a noise sufferer and, if necessary, to request the noise maker to stop. The general public need to be aware of the noise that they are making and its effect on others and, where necessary, to turn it down.
What happens if the standard does not work? To answer that, I stress that there has been some research by the building research establishment that suggests that one can devise an objective test to substantiate judgments of nuisance from amplified music. Some trials have been carried out on the proposed standard, and further work is planned. Different procedures may be needed for the assessment of noises that have significantly different characteristics from those of music, such as the noise that may result from some do-it-yourself activities. That is an important point, bearing in mind that the Bill will apply not only to dwelling houses, but to the gardens of dwelling houses. The Bill is the first step in establishing a standard; the Secretary of State will have the power to vary the standards set.
A further case brought to my attention by The Mail on Sunday is that of Mrs. Edwards. She would roam in a park near her home to escape the sound of a stereo blasting from the flat above her until 5 am every night. After sitting out in the cold and rain for several nights, she died from a combination of pneumonia and despair. Jeffrey, her husband of 22 years, said:
We would walk for hours in all weathers to get away from that noise. It broke her heart not to be able to live in her own home.
Mr. Edwards called in the environmental health officers 20 times in 18 months and three noise abatement notices were issued against a 22-year-old neighbour, who has since moved out. She was charged with playing music too loudly in defiance of the orders, and given a conditional discharge by magistrates later in the year. Mr. Edwards spoke later, and his words endorse the Bill. He said:
The authorities need tougher measures. It could be a matter literally of saving lives.
That dramatic and deeply tragic case is an example to us all of the fact that the existing legislation is insufficient to deal with the ever-increasing problem of noise nuisance. My Bill will further address that problem, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tom Cox: I touch first on the reason why the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has to leave the debate. I am sure that all hon. Members would like him to take our deep condolences to the family of Philip Lawrence. He was a courageous teacher and gentleman who was brutally murdered. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that all of us feel as deeply as he does about his constituent.
I fully support the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North on presenting it. Whatever part of the country we represent, we all know that noise has become a real and more complex problem. Clause 1 deals with night noise, and clause 2 refers to the night hours—11 pm to 7 am. During that period, excessive noise from music or from parties causes utter hell not only for people who live adjacent to the noise, but for people in a wide area. Noise travels, so many people, sadly, suffer from the problem.
We now hear a great deal about road rage. I believe that, although that problem is serious, noise rage is a far greater problem, which is suffered by many more people; we know that the problem exists. Road rage can be seen to take place. Noise rage cannot be seen, but people suffer from it and the consequences are often worse in terms of


the length of suffering. Whichever part of the country we represent, we all have constituents who come to our surgeries in utter despair about their problems.
All of us have spoken to constituents who say, "I am in utter despair. I have been to the police, but they are not interested." That is one of the sad problems. The general public feel that the police can do something about noise, and I am sure that the police often try, but—

Mr. James Couchman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that among the most intransigent problems that we encounter during our weekly or fortnightly surgeries and advice bureaux are neighbour problems, which often stem from noise nuisance?

Mr. Cox: Without a doubt. The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. As he says, we often feel that, if only the problem could have been resolved quickly and politely, both sides would have benefited. But, sadly, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North said when he explained why he was presenting the Bill, that does not happen.
We have all heard people in our advice surgeries say, "I saw the police and I thought that they would help." We ask, "Did you call them?" The complainant replies, "Oh, yes, they came—and the person creating the noise said apologetically, 'I'm sorry, officer, I didn't realise that we were playing the music so loudly and disturbing people. Of course we'll turn it down'." And they do—for a few moments. Then off go the police and, because of their many other duties, they do not have the resources or the time to go back. But they feel, "At least we have been." That is where the Bill will be so useful.
Like the promoter, and like many hon. Members, irrespective of which side of the Chamber they sit, I want the Bill to become law, and I hope that it will be made absolutely clear that local authorities, with their new powers, will be able to do something about stopping that continuing problem.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North touched on another aspect of the problem that many other hon. Members, including myself, have come across in their constituencies—as was confirmed by the intervention by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). One goes politely to the person creating the noise and asks, "Could you kindly turn it down now?" What is the response? Abuse and threats, and one walks away. At that point the complainant realises that, because the people making the noise are so aggressive, he has lost, and he thinks, "Well, okay, what can I do about it now?"
The people who make the noise will live in the same area, and they will get to see the people who have complained, and may find out their names and where they live. Constituents of mine have had their windows broken and their flowers ripped up in their gardens. They cannot prove anything, but they know that, shortly after their polite request to "turn the music down please"—not off, just down—they suffer not only the abuse with which they were initially met but damage to their property. They may not be able to prove anything, but they know that it happened, and often who did the damage.
One accepts that legislation already exists, but, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North explained, much of it is not working, and does not do the kind of job that our constituents expect. That is why they look to us for added support, and that is why I warmly support the Bill.
The Library produces many excellent reports on many issues, and in November 1995 it produced one called "Noise nuisance and anti-social neighbours". The introduction says, on page 5:
For three decades complaints about noise have been steadily rising, and in 1993/94, complaints about noise from domestic premises rose for the seventh consecutive year, to a total of 131,153 complaints".
It then mentions a problem that I have already raised, the confusion of the general public about the responsibilities of the police. I shall not comment further on that.
The research paper continues:
Some widely publicised cases have highlighted the misery that can be caused by a noisy neighbour. Often noisy actions are accompanied by other forms of inconsiderate or intimidatory behaviour, which in some cases have driven individuals to violent retaliatory action, even murder and suicide; one newspaper report has listed 17 deaths which have allegedly resulted from noise disputes".
That confirms what the hon. Member for Gillingham said in his intervention.
Clause 2 defines night hours as those between 11 pm and 7 am. I understand that times must be specified, and that many people may say that noise before 11 o'clock at night is not too bad, but I question that. If people are trying to get their youngsters off to sleep, loud noise is absolute hell. We also know that many people are shift workers and work varying hours. So to ask for restrictions from 10 pm to 7 am is not unrealistic.
I do not suggest that music should not be played at all. The Bill would simply restrict its volume during the night hours. If I happen to serve on the Standing Committee, I shall seek to amend the time, because the period between 10 pm and 7 am is not an unrealistic goal.
Clause 4 specifies a maximum fine, which I fully support, but I agreed with what the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said about a £40 fine. In this day and age, that is ludicrously low.
When we consider the financial effects of the Bill, I start to get worried. We know that with major legislation—in my view, the Bill will fall into that category—the key issue that determines whether it will succeed not only in the House but in being properly implemented in the country, is its cost.
I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Ealing, North said about seizures and the disposal of equipment. Nevertheless, many hon. Members here who have been in the House a while and have served on Committees will know what happens when a Bill gets into Committee. The Government—I do not single out the present Government; all Governments do it—say, "Yes, it is a wonderful Bill and basically we support it, but there are the costs, and we do not know whether we should get too involved with it." I hope that such an attitude will not delay the Bill's real effects.
I have found another problem in my constituency, and I am sure that, wherever our constituencies are, we can all tell similar stories. Properties in my constituency—generally lived in by young people—have been sublet, and I have been told that some of the youngsters play music hour after hour at the highest possible volume. A neighbour may have been to see them, but, frankly, they do not want to know. But if the neighbour knows either the owner of the property or the person who is officially renting it, he may try to take it up with them.
I have been involved in five such cases in three months, and have written polite letters either to the landlord or to the person who has sublet the property. Some, to their credit, do reply, but they are neither interested nor sympathetic. Their attitude is, "Look, it may be a problem, but I do not live there and I do not suffer from it. My relationship with the tenant is very good, and I am not going to get in the tenant's bad books. I am sorry, but I am not interested in doing anything." One can politely ask a person to turn his music down and be greeted by abuse. In those cases, one has lost. Sadly, in cases where landlords fail to act, one has lost again. We must look at that issue in detail in Committee.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North referred to the role of local authorities. The House of Commons research paper on the subject, which produced a great deal of valuable information, says:
Local authorities in England and Wales do indeed vary in the way in which they implement the statutory nuisance legislation that exists; the powers are there for all of them, but of course, local authority policies depend on resources and the importance they attach to noise complaints. Some authorities give noise a high priority and have 24 hour noise lines and officers on hand at all times to deal with noise nuisances.
That relates to a comment that I made earlier about the varying attitudes of local authorities.
Some agree that there is a problem and state that they are tackling it. We welcome that. But there are others who say—the hon. Gentleman referred to this—that noise is a part of modern living: while it may be a bit unpleasant, we have to put up with it, as we cannot have everything in life. We are not asking for everything in life, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are asking for a reasonable period during which people will be able to live in their homes without disturbance. If the Bill is passed and becomes law, I hope that local authorities are made clearly aware of the wishes of the House.
The research paper goes on to comment:
In 1993/4—
I understand that that was the most up-to-date figure available when the report was prepared in November 1995—
180 out of 300 local authorities who submitted returns to the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health … ran out-of-hours noise teams.
Of the 180 authorities that replied, 86 ran a 24-hours-a-day service, seven days a week; 19 ran a weekend service—that is, Thursday to Sunday; 74 ran other unspecified services; and one authority had no response.
The other crucial point is the speed of an authority's response. Of the 382 authorities surveyed on this issue, nine had an immediate response and 51 responded within 24 hours. But the response of 206 authorities varied from two to seven days. Someone suffering the absolute hell of excessively loud music will expect a speedier response from their local authority than that. Indeed, nine authorities took more than seven days to get round to the problem. I wonder how concerned some authorities are about this matter.
The problem affects not just inner-city constituencies such as mine, but rural areas. I have a sister who lives in a small town in Norfolk, and that town suffers from the same problems as my south London constituency. This is a nationwide problem, and I give credit to the hon. Gentleman for getting the Government to agree to include Northern Ireland in the proposals of the Bill.
I am sure that this will be one of those days when the House shows its concern on a matter and when hon. Members—irrespective of what side of the Chamber they sit on—will try to help all constituents with an on-going problem. Some of us know that the problem exists; it does not matter if one is the local Member of Parliament or not—if people want to play loud music, they will do so.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North on promoting the Bill, and I certainly support it. I hope that Opposition Front-Bench Members will also give the Bill their full support, because I genuinely believe that the Bill will help to overcome the problems to which the hon. Gentleman and I have referred.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: In following the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), may I say that I agree not only with the concerns that he expressed, but with some of his concerns that the Bill perhaps does not go far enough and may result in some problems. I apologise to the House, as a constituency engagement this evening means that I may have to leave before the debate finishes. I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that that may be the case.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on having chosen for a private Member's Bill such an important issue, and one that seems to have cross-party support.
The problems that are reported to us as Members of Parliament by our constituents are massive. One point that has not yet been made is that the problem of noise becomes worse during the summer months, as it did over the hot summer of last year, and over such periods, we receive even more complaints. That summer, I received regular surgery complaints about not only noise, but general public order.
The windows of houses are left open more frequently at that time of year, and more drink is consumed—perhaps as a result, people make louder noise. There are considerable problems, and the present system is found to be wanting. Like the hon. Member for Tooting, I have slight reservations about the implementation of the proposal, whether it goes far enough and whether, once it is on the statute book—as we hope it will be—it will be effective. We shall have to debate that issue later—perhaps we shall have to deal with it in Committee.
I shall put the matter in perspective in local constituency terms. The Dudley metropolitan borough area covers Halesowen and Stourbridge constituency, and I am told by my officers that, during the past year, 27 blues parties have led to complaints and problems and, overall, there have been 900 complaints. Of those complaints 200 were what my officers called hard-core complaints, for which there were serious grounds for follow-up action. As we all know, some people who are elderly and particularly nervous may make complaints that, on investigation, one would accept as perhaps not entirely justified.
On a national scale, the figures for complaints are probably even more alarming, particularly as they show the terrific increase of the past 20 or more years. In 1967, only 976 complaints were made to local authorities about noise. According to the figures published by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, the figure had soared by 1992 to 111,515. In between those dates,


there was a steady increase, with a figure of 25,000 in 1979 and 33,014 in 1982. I do not think that it is just that people are complaining more willingly; it also has a lot to do with the fact that people have less respect for their neighbours.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend may like to comment on the remarks of our hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who said that, in the past few years noise had increased, partly due to the equipment now used. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) mentioned the year 1967—when most hon. Members other than myself were not even born. Since that time, the range of equipment and the types of music played, particularly the sort that used to be known as heavy metal music, has increased. Although the numbers of people complaining about noise has increased, the noise itself has become intolerable to many people. My hon. Friend may not remember 1967, but several of us do, and it was relatively peaceful.

Mr. Hawksley: I remember 1967, as I am slightly older than my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). I agree entirely with his point. We were given the example of what happened in Norfolk—I was in rural Shropshire in those days, when one was more likely to hear cows than music from gramophones, as they were then called.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is not 1967 around the period when I seem to recall that a great group called the Beatles was giving a concert on the roof of a building in London and was removed for causing so much noise? It is somewhat untoward to impose on the House a view of generational superiority; all generations have experienced the problem. Perhaps what has changed is the nature of society—there is a bit too much of the "me generation" among our generation, with too much selfishness and not enough responsibility, which is what we need.

Mr. Hawksley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but I fear that we are straying out of order, so I shall not follow up in too much detail his point about the Beatles. I seem to remember that problems were caused not just by the noise of the group, but by the crowds that it attracted—many hundreds of thousands turned up.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Beatles made an extremely good noise and everyone enjoyed listening to the group? Perhaps the crowds of people enjoying the noise created the other noise that caused the problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just music that aggravates neighbours, but often marital problems, where husbands and wives scream at each other night after night or somebody uses an electric drill or somebody hoovers his or her flat in the early hours of the morning? We should widen the scope of debate of the noise problem, not confine it simply to music.

Mr. Hawksley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I was about to widen the scope of the debate and consider some of the many surveys on noise problems conducted

by the Government's building research establishment. It found that, after sunset, two thirds of the population were exposed to noise above the 35 dB limit recommended by the World Health Organisation. It found on a sample survey that between 60 and 70 per cent. of people who endure noise from neighbours never complain. It has already been explained to the House that on many occasions people may be frightened to complain; they may be worried that relations with their neighbours will deteriorate and they may be worried about intimidation.
The building research establishment undertook a survey of 14,000 adults in 1986–87 in England and Wales. Neighbourhood noises that disturbed people were shown in percentage terms and amplified noise came top of the list, at 34 per cent. Noise from dogs generated 33 per cent. of the noise nuisance; domestic activities—I suspect that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) was referring to when he talked about domestic disputes—created 9 per cent. of noise disturbance; voices created 6 per cent.; do-it-yourself activities generated 5 per cent.; car repairs generated 3 per cent.; and a variety of other noises generated 10 per cent. That survey shows that there are a variety of causes of noise even within the home.
Apart from the damage to people's health caused by acute stress and sleep deprivation, regrettably, noise pollution from neighbours often leads to violence.

Mr. John Carlisle: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of domestic noise, perhaps he will take note of a recent case in my constituency. A lady with a coal fire was warned by environmental health officers that she should not riddle the fire to keep it going in the extremely cold weather that we have had recently, and a notice has been served on her to that effect. When considering domestic noise, we should be careful—that poor lady could have to stay cold and, if she were old, she might lose her life as a result.

Mr. Tony Banks: What was she riddling it with—a telegraph pole?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman should understand what riddling is. The lady was riddling with an instrument used for riddling fires which, in global terms, is called a riddler. She was riddling her fire and had a notice served on her by her local authority. While riddling her fire, she was upsetting the people next door, who were probably riddling with something else in their bedroom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) should take note of that case—an important one, which hit the national headlines. I am a little fearful of a Bill that may restrict the activities of the lady who riddles her fire and of other riddlers throughout the country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to intervene, because I am enjoying this, but that was a long intervention.

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a matter of national importance that hit the papers and is directly affected by the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was still a long intervention.

Mr. Hawksley: My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) is always diligent in looking after his constituents' interests. I am sure that he checked at what time the riddling took place. If it were at 4 am, there might have been legitimate grounds for complaint. If the noise was more than 35 decibels, one can understand why action was felt to be necessary.
More than 20 people have died as a result of noise disputes with neighbours since 1992. I pick out two cases from some newspaper cuttings that I have received. Until I looked into the matter on a constituency basis, I had never thought of noise leading to such serious repercussions.
The first case dates from 19 December 1995. A newspaper reported:
A roofer killed a neighbour with a crowbar in a row over a barking puppy, Winchester Crown Court was told yesterday. Nicholas Farnell, aged 32, lost his temper in an argument with Willy Pottage, aged 56, and his wife, after they went out leaving their puppy in their garden in Waterlooville, Hampshire.
The prosecuting counsel said:
In the week or so before the incident, when they were out, the puppy would be left in the garden. The puppy used to bark a lot and this apparently upset the defendant.
I will consider later whether that would be covered under the Bill as it stands. I doubt it, because the puppy was in the garden, not the house.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I counsel my hon. Friend that, if such a thing were covered—as I shall argue if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I would oppose the Bill.

Mr. Hawksley: That needs discussion at length.
The second relevant case—all these are recent cases—also involved a murder. The Guardian of 28 September 1995 reported that a man who firebombed a noisy reggae party was gaoled for life and stated:
A British Telecom engineer who firebombed a party in the flat of noisy neighbours, causing the death of a 26-year-old mother, was yesterday jailed for life for murder with a recommendation that he serves at least 22 years … The Old Bailey heard that he snapped last July having endured prolonged excessive noise from neighbours.
I hope that those two examples and the fact that there have been 20 deaths as a result of agitation caused by noise since 1992 will convince the House that it is essential that action should be taken.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with such noises and the aggravation and irritation that they cause, it is night-time noise that is the greatest curse? People suffer the most tremendous depressions because they cannot get a decent night's sleep. That is why the Bill is so important.

Mr. Hawksley: I agree, but as the hon. Member for Tooting said, there are people who work at night and need to rest during the day. Some people put their children to bed early, and noise can cause considerable problems for families trying get a decent night's sleep for their children.
Councils respond to the present situation in different ways. Some have full-time officers, and some do nothing. Dudley council takes the middle road. It does not have full-time officers, but it has two officers who try to mediate initially and record the facts. They operate

between 7 pm and 3 am each night. They do not deal with the complaints that arise that night. If somebody rings the police, the council will be called, but those officers are responding to previous complaints. They try to check whether a continuous noise is being made. The council's environmental department sifts through the information on its cases to decide which are appropriate for the two officers to visit. The council would claim—councils claiming that will be one of the Bill's problems—that local authorities do not have sufficient resources to carry out present legislation.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is a worthy Bill, and unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) I shall certainly not oppose it. Does my hon. Friend agree that its success will depend on the energy and enthusiasm that local authorities put into its enforcement?

Mr. Hawksley: Yes, it will. It is important that local authorities take it up and do not say that they have not the resources to handle it. That is a fear, because the problem of resources is not the only one affecting council officers, who assure me that they often need police officers to accompany them. Violence and public order offences may be committed, and they do not feel that, even with the powers that the Bill would give them, they should carry out their investigations without a police officer present. Police officers have many duties and tackling noise is probably not top of their list. We all understand that. Other offences are being committed that they must tackle.
Although my officers in Dudley carry out mediation and attempt to reach peaceful settlements, the success rate is low. We have heard that there were 131,000 cases in 1994, which is only the tip of the iceberg. The average over the past 10 years has been 1,000 cases a year in which mediation has worked. That is a small number.
The elderly and the ill in particular come with great concerns to see their constituency Members of Parliament. Most of my recent cases involve people who live in flats, which suffer problems more than do houses because noises come through more strongly. Often, the complaints are against people such as a single lady with a child. When she arrives, there is no problem, but soon an unofficial lodger moves in. Many of my constituents suggest that drugs are involved and claim that crime is committed from such establishments.

Mr. Robert Banks: My hon. Friend mentioned mediation, which is a relatively new concept. The two oldest mediation services are at Bristol and Southwark and go back to 1985 and 1987. Does he agree that, if mediation is brought in early, it can save a great deal of bureaucracy and cost that would otherwise be incurred by the local authority and the police services sending their representatives to deal with the problem?

Mr. Hawksley: I entirely agree. If mediation can be used successfully, it has great advantages for costs and for neighbourly good will. It is important that everything should be done to try to bring about a peaceful agreement. Sometimes, the parties will say, "Yes, we are sorry: we did not realise it was quite so loud," but that is in a minority of cases.
Invariably, I find that constituents first complain to the police, who come round, look into the matter and talk to the people who are making the noise. Although they have


no power to act at that stage, they will normally turn down the offending musical instrument for a short period, but the volume will go back up. The police do not have the time or resources to keep responding to such noises. We must remember that. The police are involved in other things and council officers are prepared to investigate cases only when they have a police officer with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate was right to mention the bureaucracy, which involves policemen making arrests and people making complaints. I well remember the former chief superintendent at Brierley Hill, Dudley. He was worried when he went to his police station at about 4 am. He found all 12 police cars, which should have been out on patrol, parked in the police station courtyard. He was concerned and wondered whether they were having a party that he had not been told about, as his visit was an unexpected check on what they were up to. It was not a party. Each officer was dealing with one problem and was tied up for about three hours with the bureaucracy that went with it.
Obviously, the police do not want to get involved with the bureaucracy that goes with this Bill. They do not have the resources, and cannot afford, to do so. A fixed penalty is desirable, as it could help to reduce the amount of police bureaucracy necessary when a public order offence is committed and may save some time, although we must carefully consider the £40 figure.
We must accept that, even under the Bill, council officers will need to be accompanied by police officers on most occasions. On many occasions, particularly in the early hours of the morning, they are fearful of investigating such matters on their own. Officers working for my council have certainly said that they are not prepared to work without the close co-operation and support of the police. Their work is dependent on the police being available to help them.
My main concern is whether the Bill goes far enough and is the complete answer. I am far from convinced that it is. I am concerned about particular proposals, although I will certainly support the Bill today.

Miss Kate Hoey: I share some of the views that the hon. Gentleman has expressed about the Bill not going far enough. I have not read it in detail, but does he agree that the great disruption and noise pollution caused on densely populated estates late at night by people sitting around in large cars with loud music blaring, particularly in the summer, does not seem to be covered? I hope that the Bill will go into Committee, and I hope that that matter will be considered there.

Mr. Hawksley: I accept that point. I asked what would happen if a garden were involved. I understand why, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North proposed the Bill, he said that it was intended for households. Other legislation covers the matter that the hon. Lady mentioned—that is a public order offence, which is in police hands. I am not sure whether such cases could be brought within the scope of the Bill.
The Library produced a good review of the Bill and mentioned the powers in Scotland. It is interesting to consider the Scottish powers, which go much further than ours. The Library research paper states:

The statutory nuisance provisions … were initially not extended to Scotland, where the very similar provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which the 1990 Act replaced, were retained for noise control, and the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 was retained for other statutory nuisances.
Two main differences arose from the different statutory provisions in Scotland. Firstly, Scottish local authorities did not have a duty under the 1974 Act to investigate noise complaints, and the maximum fines were much smaller. However, section 107 and schedule 17 of the 1995 Environment Act have extended England and Wales' statutory nuisance system, including the noise controls, to Scotland.
Secondly"—
this is the important part—
in Scotland the police are empowered to tackle some noise problems, whereas in England and Wales they are not. This important additional control available in Scotland operates under section 54 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, whereby it is an offence not to stop making certain noises (such as singing or playing a hi-fi) which are giving reasonable cause for annoyance, when asked to do so by the police. If the noise maker fails to stop he can then be arrested and charged, although evidence shows that many people making noise normally stop when asked to do so by a uniformed constable. Moreover, the police have powers under common law to remove articles suspected of being used in the commission of an offence, so they can seize equipment following a failure to desist from making a noise under the 1982 Act.

Mr. John Carlisle: In his research into the Scottish situation, has my hon Friend come across the awful problem of noise from bagpipes, which must be one of the most horrendous instruments ever invented—I say that in the knowledge that certain hon. Members have a Scottish connection? Is that covered in those statutory arrangements?

Mr. Hawksley: I suspect that few magistrates in Scotland, or Crown court officers—

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that anyone who has had the privilege of living in Scotland and listening to the bagpipes would not regard them as making anything other than a beautiful sound?

Mr. Hawksley: Before I get brought back to order fairly quickly by the Chair, I must say that, not having lived in Scotland, I would not know whether the sound that bagpipes make is beautiful or not. I think, however, that one would have problems getting the judiciary there to take too seriously any complaints about the reasonable playing of the bagpipes. I should think that Scotsmen would show common sense on the matter.

Mr. Couchman: I hate to add to talk about the pipes, but I have the doubtful pleasure of expecting to be woken on Sunday at about 7 o'clock by bagpipes, played not by Scottish highlanders, but by Nepalese highlanders, for I have Gurkhas situated close by and they are definitely not as proficient on the bagpipes as Scotsmen. It is an unpleasant prospect on a Sunday morning.
I intervened because I wondered whether my hon. Friend wanted to say something about the incredible intrusion into one's life of badly set and faulty burglar alarms.

Mr. Hawksley: I gather that there is separate legislation that is supposed to cover that. I agree that,


in practice, it is not adequate, given the noises one hears not just from cars—I admit my car seems to make noises when it feels lonely, or something like that, as I can never understand why the alarm is set off—but from households. On many occasions, it is a false alarm, and that creates a lot of ill will.
I must move on to a few concerns about the legislation. We have already heard about the £40 fine and whether it is adequate. I do not think that it is. If it is going to be an effective deterrent, it must be more than £40. If three or four people are at a private party, which they are not paying for, they will all give 10 quid and be quite happy. That fine is not high enough and I hope the Committee will consider raising it to £100 or something in that region, as suggested.
I hope that the replies to the debate will deal with clause 10 and the power it gives for equipment to be seized. My local authority assures me that it has never had any problems on that. It still seizes equipment if necessary, and has never been challenged successfully in the courts. It was surprised that the introduction of that power was felt necessary.
My concern is the position under the schedule. The Library research paper states that the schedule provides:
Where a person from whom equipment has been seized is convicted of a noise offence and the court is satisfied that the equipment was used in commission of the offence, the court may make a forfeiture order for that equipment. This may be done independently of any other penalty decided on by the court and without regard to restrictions on forfeiture in any other enactment, but the court must have regard to the value of the equipment and to the likely financial and other effects on the offender.
So far, so good. That I understand.
I am slightly worried, however, that the paper continues:
"Where equipment has been forfeited but an applicant can show that he had not consented to the offender having possession of the equipment and that he did not know or suspect that it would be used in the commission of a noise offence, the applicant may take proceedings for the recovery of the equipment. This must be done within six months of the equipment being forfeited.
The police will obviously have to store that equipment, should it be forfeited, for a considerable time. It goes on:
Where no such application has been made, regulations may provide for the disposal of equipment and for the application of any such proceeds.
I am slightly worried that that could be a loophole. People could well lend friends their equipment and then say after it had been used, "No, I didn't know that he was going to use it for that." I can foresee that those people may get the equipment back. If that happens and it becomes common knowledge when people who are determined to make a noise are involved, we will find that they go on using their friends's equipment because they will know that, under clause 10, the equipment must be returned. I am slightly worried, not being a lawyer, whether that is the correct reading of the situation.

Mr. Robert Banks: What would happen if the equipment were leased or on hire-purchase?

Mr. Hawksley: As I have said, I am not a lawyer. It is a matter that concerns me, and it should perhaps be examined in Committee. In practice, I hope that the ideas behind this clause will be effective, and that, if someone uses equipment and makes an excessive noise, the courts

can take the equipment from them. However, I think that that clause might create an opening for people to get away from the Bill's intention. The question of leasing should be examined.
I conclude with the question whether the definition of "within the household" is the correct one, because I am worried about dogs in kennels. If one considers that there are almost as many complaints about dogs as about music, and that one of the murder cases that I cited involved a dog that was left outside in a garden barking all day and all night, one must ask whether that problem would be covered. I think that that is a problem that we should want to deal with to protect people against that type of noise—whether it comes from inside the house, from a kennel or from the garden—and that we should not want to differentiate between the origin of it. I believe that our intention in all those cases is for the dog to stop barking and to be kept quiet.
If I criticised the Bill in any way, it is not because I disagree with its purpose. I whole-heartedly support the Bill and think that it is very necessary. I question, to varying degrees, whether it goes far enough and does what we want it to do. I hope that it will be speedily accepted today in the House, that it will have a speedy passage through Committee and that it will soon become the law to protect all our constituents against the terrible noise nuisances from which they are currently suffering.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I can do no better than to start by continuing where the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) finished. I share his view and hope that the Bill obtains a Second Reading. Like the hon. Gentleman, I know that the Bill will be much appreciated. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who has had to leave the Chamber, for choosing this subject after he had the good fortune to win a high place in the top 20 in the ballot. This is an appropriate topic for a Bill.
I am sure that all hon. Members would like to join the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and the hon. Member for Ealing, North in the respect and condolences that they have expressed for the family of Philip Lawrence, whose funeral is today. As one who went to the memorial service in Westminster cathedral, I can tell the House of the family's great bravery. For the daughters and wife of Mr. Lawrence, that service was a wonderful tribute to their dad and husband. We wish them every blessing and support in the days and weeks ahead.
I am pleased to be a sponsor of this Bill. The only interest that I have to declare is that I am the hon. Member who represents the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, which has just a bit of an interest in this issue. However, I should add that it is always a bit cautious about such legislation. I do not want to misrepresent the situation and say that all these proposals have its full support.
In common with many colleagues, particularly those from the London constituencies with whom I have discussed the matter, I am a great supporter of the campaign that has led to this Bill's Second Reading. The National Society for Clean Air and the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign—which now feels that it can wind down because it has made its mark—and its leader, Val Gibson, have been great campaigners.


I also pay tribute to the press, because it has been very good on this issue. We all have local papers that have done a good job. My neighbours, the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), are in the Chamber today. The South London Press has been a very good campaigning paper, as has my borough's local newspaper, the Southwark News. The national press, especially The Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Independent—newspapers across the spectrum—have also been very good. There has been much intelligent and informed support, for which we are grateful.
The only wry moment of amusement that I have so far had in this debate occurred when I was listening to Conservative Members hold forth on the music of our age. The hon. Member for Ealing, North stretched the imagination a bit as he spoke about techno music. I was amused by the general recollections of the Beatles by some hon. Members who, I should have thought, have outgrown that era. We must be very careful not to appear to be talking about things that we know relatively little about.

Mr. Tony Banks: As usual.

Mr. Hughes: Yes. Some of us may know a little more about musical things, from various experiences, than others.
We have moved relatively quickly, for this place, in bringing the Bill to this stage. We legislated in 1990, with the Environmental Protection Act 1990; we legislated again in 1993, in relation to such matters as car noise; the working party was set up, after a bit of pressure, in 1994; it reported in 1995; and we have a Bill in 1996. Although that might appear slow to the public, for this place we have moved very quickly.
As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said to me a moment ago, this Bill will receive a great welcome. I agree with her comment that, for people on estates in Lambeth, and for my constituents in Southwark, this Bill is probably far more significant than the Scott report, although it may be a bit provocative to say so. In terms of immediate impact, this Bill matters far more than the complicated ramifications of who is accountable in the civil service and the Government. Therefore, if we get this Bill through quickly, we can spend more time on Scott afterwards. We certainly cannot forget about Scott, and we will not. However, legislating on noise will generally be easier, and more popular and will receive more unanimous support from hon. Members.
The evidence on the number and severity of complaints has been mentioned. I should like to make two quotations. The first comes from a very good article in The Independent of 30 December 1992 about people who deal with the prospects of mediation. The article ran:
Prolonged exposure to domestic noise can make people desperate. Seven months of relentless disco music drove a south London market trader to shoot his neighbour in the stomach, and months of nightly misery from a car alarm provoked an east London resident to vent his feelings on the offending vehicle with a metal pipe.

In today's South London Press, entirely coincidentally, there was a short article entitled "Row over rock led to stabbing", which said:

"A heavy rock fan stabbed to death a neighbour who complained about his loud Led Zeppelin records.
An Old Bailey judge heard that Billy Clark, 44, had to be up for work at 5 am but was kept awake by music from David Ravenhall on September 14 last year.
In a row that followed the complaint, Mr. Clark head-butted Ravenhall who then plunged a knife into his heart.
Mr. Clark was rushed to hospital from the bedsit block at Newlands Park, Sydenham, but his life could not be saved.
The judge told Ravenhall, 'Your music started this. He over-reacted. You picked up a knife and stabbed Mr. Clark in the course of the struggle.
'You are going to have to live with that death for the rest of your life.'"

Those of us who have been involved in the campaign have heard from many people of the deaths, suicides and violence to which people have been driven. I pay tribute to people such as Spike Milligan, among others, who have campaigned to bring attention to the way in which noise can be the most devastating intrusion into peoples' private lives and homes.

Mr. Couchman: Can the hon. Gentleman say, from his expertise in following this campaign through from its early days, whether car alarms will come within the scope of the Bill? I believe, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, that noise from cars can be just as devastating as noise from within a domestic property.

Mr. Hughes: The Bill deals only with noise from domestic premises and noise created at night. The Minister will no doubt deal with this point later, but, generally speaking, noise from vehicles is dealt with under the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993. Whether that is adequate is something that we can consider. We should, however, definitely examine the proposal made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall that noise from cars on estates should be included in the Bill. Existing legislation covers noise from cars on the street but, as the hon. Member knows, estate roads are not really the street, so noise from estates, which are private property, that is not from the home is not covered. Perhaps an appropriate amendment could be tabled in Committee.
I shall say a word or two about good precedent. The Scots have a criminal law to deal with noise, and their experience of it has been good. Yet again, we must pay tribute to the Scots, who are ahead of us in matters of legislation, and learn from their experience.
The Bill must provide three things: the right penalty, the right procedure, and the necessary protection for people who complain. The three penalty options in the Bill are a warning, a fine and then confiscation. I take a very hard line on this and believe that most people who live in the middle of the inner city, surrounded by estates, do, too. I agree with the "two strikes and you're out" view.
I accept that there should be a warning followed by the possibility of a fine and confiscation of equipment but, after a second offence, we should put the offender inside for a night or two. That person has usually deprived not only his neighbour, but hundreds of people of their liberty and the enjoyment of it. I shall press the Minister in Committee to agree that a second offence committed within a reasonable period should result in a night or two


in gaol. I am not suggesting long sentences, but people should know that, if they deprive other people of their liberty in this way, they risk a night in gaol.

Mr. Banks: Could not we toughen up that proposal a little by putting offenders away for a night and playing them heavy metal music all night at full volume? Perhaps we could play them Iron Maiden or AC/DC, as that is the sort of music that can drive people insane.

Mr. Hughes: I take the general point, but Iron Maiden is a good south London band and I would not want a word said against it. When I was a youth leader, I used to follow it around the country. Such was my wayward youth.
To be serious, though, we have to make people understand what they are doing. The danger of the fine option, as we know, is that fines are often not paid. That leads to a long, involved process of chasing the fine and trying to get people to court when they do not pay. Many offenders do not have readily available cash, and getting £1,000 from them might not be easy. It might be quicker, cheaper and easier to put them in a local police station cell for a night. Whether they experience a great deal of noise or absolute silence, either would be preferable to their making a nuisance of themselves at home.

Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way. From his experience in his south London constituency, he will be aware of the danger of intimidation and retaliation by people who create excessive noise against people who complain. Would he care to comment on that?

Mr. Hughes: I was coming to that point; it relates to the third of the points that I outlined earlier.
I said that the Bill needed to provide the right procedure. The working party left the matter open, so I pay tribute to the Government for being persuaded that a criminal procedure is likely to be far more efficient and effective than the current statutory nuisance procedure. The current process is very lengthy. Someone has to keep diaries and give evidence, but there are no immediate implications for the person who is creating the nuisance, who can then serve counter-notices. That is often not effective.
One of the problems is that the time that elapses between the commission of a crime or anti-social activity and its punishment is that the two appear unrelated. Kids often feel that they have got away with something because they are not dealt with until a year after the offence. Society's response to anti-social activity needs to be much quicker. I reaffirm the hope that we can add to the Bill a proposal to deal with noise from private property such as estate roads, rather than from houses alone.
My next point relates to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). The weakness of the current system is that people are often terrified of giving evidence. If a 75-year-old woman lived next door to a flat inhabited or visited by a muscular 6 ft 21-year-old who played loud music all night, we could not get her to court in a month of Sundays, and nor should we—if she did go, her life might not be worth living. In any event, many less vulnerable people have the same difficulty.
Noise nuisance is not a victimless crime—indeed, it is a victim-intensive crime. We must ensure that victims do not have to put themselves in the front line. The Bill is

rather ambiguous in places. The police, environmental health officers and others who are recognised officers in the community should give the evidence. We must separate the complaint from the verification, and the evidence should be given by the verifier, not the complainant.
Finally, we must ensure that the resources necessary for the job are available. The proposals will have an impact on local authorities and the police. The Government might come up with good ideas but, often, others, whether local authorities or the police, are left to pay for them out of their own resources. The Bill will not work if we do not give police and local authorities the resources to do the business.
I welcome the Bill. I hope that it will end the terrorising of many people, especially at night and on large estates. I am sure that it will be generally welcomed and that we can do a businesslike job in Committee to get it on the statute book this year. Let us hope that 1996 will be the year in which peace will begin to return to our far too many noisy, and therefore devastatingly unpleasant, estates.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the Bill. Perhaps unusually, I wish to associate myself with everything that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. I fully endorse the principle and purpose of the Bill.
It is common ground among all hon. Members that noise is an increasingly prevalent complaint with which we have to deal at our surgeries. Like the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), I have heard endless complaints about noise on estates and in tower blocks, where noise seems to reverberate due, perhaps, to the concrete structure and the lack of thick interior partition walls—in any event, noise there seems to create a particular type of hell.
The increase in noise has a number of causes. One is undeniably the increase in the amplification power available with modern stereos. There is no doubt that modern equipment produces far more noise of greater intensity, and there has been a tremendous increase in the performance of speakers, especially of the bass sound, which can produce a thumping that can be felt through walls and make glasses chink in neighbouring flats. Such noise can be extremely penetrating, and can create an absolute nightmare for neighbours.
Another problem is the general lack of respect for neighbours shown by people who play loud music. We should take every possible step—I am sure that the Bill will be one of them—to remind people of their social responsibility to their neighbours. Demographic changes sometimes make the situation more difficult. More younger and older families live together than perhaps was the case in the past and it is inevitable that, friction may arise from the proximity.
There is also a greater awareness among the public that they should be concerned about noise. Why should their lives be made a misery by other people's thoughtlessness? It is right that Parliament should take the matter up. As I have often said, Members of Parliament should be the representatives of individuals who are struggling against something that they feel they cannot overcome and cannot


even complain about for fear of intimidation, retribution and violence—all the problems that hon. Members have already outlined.
I strongly endorse the basic principles of the Bill. I have problems with certain aspects, which I have already mentioned, and I hope that those problems will be addressed in Committee. However, the idea of confiscation is excellent and we must ensure that it is an easy, practicable remedy. The Committee must ensure that local authorities feel that they have the power to confiscate equipment, irrespective of whether it is leased, hired or borrowed from a friend. I am sure that the Committee will be able to clarify that if necessary.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important not just to pass the Bill, but to ensure that local authorities carry out their permissive powers? In the London borough of Barnet, when it was under Conservative control, the council set up a noise patrol which dealt with many complaints. When a Liberal-Labour pact took control of the council, one of the first things it did was to get rid of the noise patrol. Is that not a thoughtless and anti-social action by the council?

Mr. Hargreaves: I entirely endorse that point. We must have uniform standards and guidelines which establish a duty of responsibility on local authorities and by which they can be measured, in the same way as charters measure other areas of responsibility. It is perfectly reasonable to do that for local authorities.
Confiscation is extremely important. The suggestion that we have heard from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey who has temporarily left the Chamber, of a possible brief term of imprisonment, if other remedies fail, is very sensible. Furthermore, I entirely endorse the suggestion that the Bill should concentrate on the night hours. The Committee can examine which hours comprise the night hours, but 11 pm until 7 am is a particularly sensitive time, in which the restorative process of sleep does its work, and would be a sensible beginning.
Many hon. Members have said that they do not feel that the £40 fixed penalty is sufficient. I agree with them and I hope that in Committee we shall be able to increase that sum dramatically. I say that for an especial reason. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who has also left the Chamber temporarily, will forgive me and I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will bear with me for a minute, as I have some personal comments to make.
A while ago, like other hon. Members, I received a number of threats. It was threatened that I would be blown up and killed. The threats were delivered to my local Conservative club and might have needed to be taken seriously. I was advised, as hon. Members are, to install a number of security measures. These included an intruder alarm on my premises in London and in my constituency. Last summer was very hot and there were many complaints about noise. That is perfectly understandable because people have their windows open.
For some totally unexplained reason—it was thought afterwards that the cause could have been a large butterfly or a fall of soot down the chimney—the alarm in my house went off. It created a nuisance and, although I was not at home, I was served with a statutory nuisance order,

and a matter of hours afterwards, the police and local environment health officers broke into my house, tore out the alarm and silenced it. I was later presented with a bill for some £240, and it cost me double that to reinstate the alarm. Had I not been able to pay, I could have been fined £5,000.
The Bill proposes a £40 fine, with a maximum of £1,000 at a later date. I speak for my constituents and not just for myself. In one street in my constituency, householders have their houses or cars broken into, on average, six times a year. They have all had to install some sort of alarm. Alarms of that kind, which the police, the Government and all responsible people encourage people to install to protect their property and to lower the crime figures, may go off accidentally through no thoughtlessness or carelessness, but perhaps through shoddy workmanship, while people are visiting sick relatives or away for a weekend. A distinction should be drawn between that type of incident and those involving thoughtless and deliberate behaviour, which is what we are trying to tackle in the Bill.
I believe that the penalties for thoughtless and deliberate noise pollution and aggravation—for example, when people continue to play amplified music after being asked to turn it down—should be greater than in those cases which are covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and its amendment by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), when he reads what I have said in the debate, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, can consider in Committee whether we have the balance right.
There is a tendency in all local authorities—obviously, more in some than in others—to pursue soft targets. The property owner and responsible citizen is a soft target. He is likely to pay up, as I did, and the local authority is likely to recover the costs of the operation. That gives the local authority the opportunity to say reasonably that it has done its job on noise pollution and statutory nuisance, and that it went out on so many occasions and dealt with the problem.
However, the local authority may be picking on soft targets. For example, in Bristol, a surgeon held a party for a son or daughter and he was fined £900. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) mentioned the case of the lady who was riddling a fire. In Camberley, Surrey, a lady was fined a significant amount of money because her dogs made too much noise. Again, she was an easy target, because the local authority knew that she would pay the bill and do something to remedy the noise. Perhaps it is right that she should do that, but we should get the balance right, because the Bill is designed to deal with those who are not responsible.
A dog or an alarm may make more noise than is reasonable while people are out, but such people do not deliberately intend to make that noise. The Bill is designed to deal with those who flagrantly ignore other people's rights to privacy and quiet. That means people who play music loudly and aggressively, and sometimes with intimidation, disturbing the peace of others solely because they enjoy noise at that level.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend seems to be ignoring the fact that the Bill deals with noise that is made between 11 pm and 7 am. I do not believe that many people riddle fires at that time. Surely it is more


responsible for people with house alarms to give a key to a neighbour so that he or she can turn the confounded thing off rather than go away without taking such precautions. Dogs should not be in gardens between 11 pm and 7 am; they should be inside the house and asleep.

Mr. Hargreaves: I am simply saying that the balance in the Bill is wrong. People should be subject to a greater penalty for making noise at night rather than accidental noise that may be caused during the day. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North will consider that. It is wrong that those who create noise and disturb other people's sleep and quiet at night are subject to a smaller penalty than those who may cause noise accidentally during the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) says that people with house alarms should give a house key to someone else. In my case, that someone was in hospital undergoing treatment for cancer and could not be reached. I had taken every precaution, as I am sure my constituents also do with their house alarms.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: My hon. Friend could overcome the problems with his house alarm by fixing one with a 20-minute cut-off, as is required for outside alarm systems under the Environment Act 1995. Moreover, does he agree that many people regularly leave their dogs outside at night?

Mr. Hargreaves: My alarm was designed to cut out earlier than 20 minutes, but for some reason beyond my control it did not do so. That, too, may be a problem for constituents in my street who may be away visiting sick relatives. What can they do about their alarm going off? Those people are not deliberately making an excessive noise that disturbs others. The cause of the noise may be beyond their control.
There is difference between them and those who deliberately continue to make a noise after they have been asked to turn something down. In the former case, my constituents and I have taken every possible precaution to prevent noise nuisance to others. I am sure that those people, like me, do not object to paying up or running round and apologising most profusely to their neighbours, because they are responsible people.
The Bill refers to those who are not responsible and who are not accountable for their actions. They will not think of their neighbours, and may deliberately continue after they have been asked to turn the noise down.

Mr. David Evennett: As one of the sponsors of the Bill, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I shall certainly pass them on to the promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Does my hon. Friend agree that the noise caused by a burglar alarm is an occasional occurrence, whereas the Bill is designed to deal with those who persistently offend night after night and cause distress and hardship to neighbours through their thoughtlessness and lack of consideration? My hon. Friend's comments are relevant and interesting, but he is talking about occasional noise caused by a burglar alarm rather than noise that is made night after night.

Mr. Hargreaves: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but those who make such occasional noise incur the same penalty as those who are persistently noisy. That is why I should like that part of the Bill to be reconsidered.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall and some of my hon. Friends have spoken about the possibility that the Bill might cover noise from cars playing loud amplified music. I may be wrong, but I believe that, under the law, a car is a piece of private property, so noise emanating from a car should be within the compass of the Bill.
In my street in Battersea, as well as in my street in Hall Green, I have frequently complained, together with my neighbours, about a young gentleman in one case and a young couple in the other case who cruise down our street, stop and enjoy themselves for perhaps 20 minutes while playing music loudly. At the height of the summer, everyone has the windows open—as do the occupants of those cars—and I can tell my hon. Friends that the music from that young gentleman's car was so loud that glasses in my house rattled, such was the thump of the bass speaker.
I cannot say to my hon. Friends in all honesty that I would have had the time on the first two occasions to rush off and ring the environmental health officer so that the noise patrol unit in Wandsworth could race round. By that time, that young man and his friends would have left. Nevertheless, it is a serious problem, because it winds my neighbours up to an extraordinary level.
That individual has a perfectly good home to go to, and there are plenty of other places where he could play his music, but he chooses to come to a residential street late at night—always between midnight and about 2 o'clock in the morning—to play his music so loud that it makes glasses rattle in my house. That noise comes from a car, not from my next-door neighbours. I am not passing any comment about the sort of music he plays—everyone is within their rights to play whatever music they like—but it should not disturb my peace and that of my neighbours. Why should he be allowed to sit in his car outside my house or those of my neighbours and play his music loudly? A car is private property and the scope of the Bill should be extended to cover such property as well as residential property.

Mr. Robert Banks: Did my hon. Friend speak to the people in the car who were causing the problem and, if so, what was their reaction?

Mr. Hargreaves: On one occasion I went to speak to that person on my own behalf and that of my neighbours. I cannot repeat in the Chamber the language that met my request. Had I not been vaguely familiar to the occupants of that car, I might have been met with violence as well. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the usual reaction from such people, who do not respect either the privacy or the person of other people. They are likely to react violently or intimidatingly, and they are not likely to take any notice of those who simply ask them to turn the music down a bit.
Noise from cars is a serious noise nuisance. The worst thing about it is that it can lead to serious violent confrontation, and occasionally racial confrontations, when such music is played on and on and any requests for quiet are ignored. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to extend the scope of the Bill so that some remedy is available for those who suffer from noise nuisance of that type.
I hope that the promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, will forgive me if I am not here for the winding-up speeches, because, like my hon. Friend the


Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), I have a constituency engagement and I may have to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: To switch off the alarm.

Mr. Hargreaves: I hope that I shall never have to do anything else to my alarm.
I look forward very much to hearing further from my hon. Friend that the important matters that I have raised will be dealt with in Committee.

Mr. Tony Banks: As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) has had his alarm serviced, he is one of the most unfortunate people that I have ever come across. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on this Bill, and I am pleased to be a sponsor of it—however, I have a number of points in relation to the detail of it, which I hope will be taken up during the Committee stage. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not being present during his speech: I promise to read it in Hansard, immediately after I have read the Scott report—so I may be some time. Judging by the interviews that I heard on the radio this morning, Ministers are now calling the Scott report the "We all got off scot-free report".
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is absolutely correct about the Scott report. I will not detract in any way from the political and constitutional significance of the Scott report, but I know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] When did the House get a collective Chair? I was about to say that I will not detract from the Scott report's long-term political and constitutional significance, but merely point out that I receive far more letters about noise pollution than I will receive about the Scott report. I am trying to put this issue into some sort of context. Yesterday the Chamber was packed and there was a considerable amount of noise, but today it is quiet.
Obviously all hon. Members know something about noise—we make a lot of it, particularly at Prime Minister's Question Time. That part of our proceedings receives the most criticism from outside—people are offended by the boisterous activity they see—but, in many respects, that criticism is misplaced. Noise in this place is a product of the atmosphere. It is rather like a football stadium, particularly when it is packed, and everyone cheers on their side—even when it is playing rubbish. If our constituents were forced to be crammed into this place for Prime Minister's Question Time they would behave in the same way as Members of Parliament. I have always been ready to defend Members of Parliament in terms of their conduct at Prime Minister's Question Time.
Our constituents bring their noise problems to us on a regular, and depressing, basis. I find—as I am sure is the case for all hon. Members—that problems involving noisy neighbours are some of the most intractable that Members of Parliament receive. Another problem is that one hears only one side of the story—they tend not to turn up in pairs. I have had instances where one neighbour comes to

me and complains and a few days later the other neighbour comes to me, and the stories are completely different.
One knows how impossible it is at times to reconcile the problems because people perceive them from a personal point of view. It is often difficult, if not impossible, for us to make a judgment. The problem then gets passed on to the various agencies, including the police. We all have a sympathy for those who try to deal with these sorts of problems.
The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) referred to achieving reconciliation between warring neighbours. In Newham, an organisation called Conflict and Change attempts to do precisely that. I feel almost guilty when I have a problem in front of me but I know that I cannot deal with it and then say, "There is a specialised, voluntary agency in Newham called Conflict and Change where someone will help you". I always feel as though I am passing the buck, but I also feel relieved that I can pass the problem on to an organisation that will at least attempt to reconcile it.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has talked about individuals. Is not part of the problem the fact that, under the present legislation, council environmental health officers insist on a diary being kept so that evidence can be brought forward? In many cases, only one person in the street will have the time to write the diary or the courage to produce it. Even though there may be a common problem, it often comes down to a neighbour against neighbour problem because only one person is willing to record the noise nuisance that emanates from the house.

Mr. Banks: We would all like to be able to resolve these problems speedily, but the process that we have at the moment—and even the process laid out in the Bill—will not achieve the speedy resolution that we would all like. There are many problems. For example, by the time someone can come around and hear the noise it may have stopped. The individual who complained then feels like an idiot, and says, "Well, you should have heard it before." That is why it is necessary for them to keep a diary.
When there are extreme cases, one would like to have faster methods of dealing with the problem. We all know that this is an appalling problem, and various examples have been given of people being pushed completely over the edge by noise pollution. It is one of the most intrusive, destructive and disruptive forms of pollution. I experienced noise pollution in a flat in which I lived, and I know how close I came to wanting to be aggressive—indeed, violent—towards the individual concerned. My privacy was encroached on—in fact, I had no privacy. I was trying to read, and all I could hear was the television and the music from the flat next door. I felt that they were living in my flat with me.
I well understand when people come to me and are in an advanced state of nervous breakdown. They say, "You don't know how bad it is". I can sympathise entirely with people such as that, because I have experienced it myself. In April 1994 the Newham council set up a special noise team, and there is now an out-of-hours service. However, budgetary restraints limit the size and the effectiveness of


that team. The environmental health service in Newham received 1,300 noise complaints in 1993–94; 2,000 in 1994–95; and 2,370 so far in 1995–96.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the construction of so many blocks of flats and multiple occupation dwellings has not incorporated sound-proofing materials in the walls and in the floors? That area is sadly neglected by architects and developers. Should not that issue be tackled?

Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Hall Green made that point, and I had also planned to make it. There are two points in this regard. The first is the increasing technological specifications of hi-fi equipment—one can get far more speaker output with smaller speakers. Secondly, how could the architects who build the tower blocks understand, appreciate or anticipate technological developments in music reproduction?
Obviously, one could talk about adaptation schemes and insulation, but that involves big money. There are well over 100 tower blocks in the London borough of Newham. At the best of times, they are not the most comfortable places in which to live. Will the Government give us the money to insulate those tower blocks to avoid noise pollution problems?
One thing that the council could do is try to ensure that it does not jumble up the social mix of people who live in tower blocks. When there are a lot of elderly people in a tower block and the council moves young families—most of whom own hi-fi equipment—into the building, everyone is affected. The noise can carry and affect people on other floors, not just those who are next door, so a significant number of people can then be affected.
If we cannot get the resources to put in the sound insulation that is necessary, we need instead to look at housing policy to achieve the right social mix, especially the age mix. I only hope that architects are now paying much more attention to the problem than was possible previously. They could not have been aware of the problems in the 1960s, when so many of the tower blocks were constructed in my part of east London.
I have quoted some statistics to show that noise is a growing problem in the east end. The increase may be due in part to a number of factors, such as decreasing tolerance levels brought about by other, but allied, social problems such as unemployment, being on social security, being in poverty or suffering from overcrowding. Not only does being unemployed mean spending more time in one's accommodation, but that and the other social factors lower tolerance to other people's habits.
The problems often arise because of a mix of factors. Quite often it is not just the noise that upsets people: it is something else that eventually causes those suffering from noise pollution to crack. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green mentioned some cases where people actually died because of noise pollution. Given my experience, I can almost understand that people could be pushed to such a point that they resort to extreme physical violence. There is no excuse for that, but we understand that people might be tipped over the edge.
One reason why Newham is getting more complaints is that the council has run an extensive and commendable campaign to draw attention to the sort of action people

can take to resolve noise problems. Of course, once something is drawn to people's attention, there will be an increase in the numbers taking up the various suggestions.
The specialist noise team in Newham tries to provide an immediate response wherever possible, but it must operate a priority system. It tends to prioritise those sources of noise disturbance which could end up causing a breach of the peace or where the noise does not just affect one flat or property but a whole range—an example of that is the tower block, which I have already mentioned—or where the council thinks that the noise is part of a deliberate attempt at harassment. I will not bore the House by citing numerous examples, as no doubt other hon. Members also receive complaints about noise being used deliberately to force someone out of his home.
That sort of harassment is even more unacceptable than someone making a noise without realising that others might not appreciate the music or the level of output. Of course, one problem is trying to get someone to the property at the time that the noise is being suffered, especially late at night. In Newham, the council tries to get someone out on at least four occasions to hear the noise and then serve an abatement notice.
I am a sponsor of the Bill. The hon. Member for Ealing, North quite often—well, perhaps not that often—comes up with good ideas, and this Bill is one of them. I was pleased to put my name to it. Unfortunately, once the Bill had been published, I sent it to my local council, and, although it generally welcomes the Bill, it also has many criticisms of it. They are generally matters that are better taken up in Committee. I volunteer my services for the Committee, if the hon. Member for Ealing, North nominates me.
One criticism was about the fine. Another was that the Bill would require measurements to be carried out that would substantially increase the amount of time involved in investigations. Another was that the offence would be committed only if the fixed criteria were to be breached in the property immediately adjacent to the source of the noise. As the council pointed out, that has two effects:
(i) the anonymity of the complainant on the night is compromised
and
(ii) disturbance suffered in other nearby properties would not constitute an offence where the immediate neighbours were unwilling or unable to complain.
One reason they might be unwilling to complain is if they feel physically threatened by neighbours. We need to consider that point. If we ask people to come forward with complaints, we must be able to offer them the necessary protection.
I understand that the three London boroughs that took part in the pilot scheme all reported many instances in which the night-time noise offence could not be proved, but where a statutory nuisance had been established.

Mr. Couchman: When the hon. Gentleman took up this matter with his local council, did it have anything to say about the measuring devices that would be necessary if the Bill is to be effective? I understand that they are expensive and not all that easy to use. Certainly, at one point they were not that accurate.

Mr. Banks: As a matter of fact, the council did. It said:
The requirement is that two separate 10-minute readings are taken to differentiate between the usual background noise in the household being disturbed and the noise being complained of.


This would be very difficult to carry out where there is no let-up in the noise source and it is almost impossible to ensure that the people complaining about the disturbance do not talk to the officers making the measurements in this period and so interrupt this procedure.
I am sure that people of good will, who are mindful that this Bill is a good measure, can work together in Committee to make it a better one that will meet the hon. Gentleman's points.
The council points out:
Although it has been claimed that the two offences (night time noise and statutory nuisance) may be used in tandem this is considered unlikely since it may be anticipated that alleged offenders may use in defence of an allegation of statutory nuisance, the fact that the fixed offence criteria was not breached. Therefore the lower standard which would protect fewer people from noise disturbance may become the benchmark for assessing nuisance.
Initially, the new requirements could lead to additional safety problems for enforcing officers who will be required to approach the offender at the time of the offence and serve the fixed penalty notice. Although it may be necessary to request police attendance at this time, experience has shown that the police may be unable to attend at the time of the request and that, in some cases, the presence of the police in itself provides a potential source of conflict. At present officers are able to issue an abatement notice to the alleged offender and thereafter gain sufficient evidence to instigate a prosecution without returning to the premises at the time of offence.
In conclusion, the proposals for the new offence as presented thus far appear to be very difficult to enforce and take a very narrow view of the nature of noise nuisance.
The environmental health service people who provided the brief welcome the Bill, but as a means of codifying and further strengthening existing legislation in respect of a very serious form of pollution. In that respect, I welcome the Bill—despite the points that I have raised at their request. I want to see the Bill strengthened and on the statute book. I hope that the Minister will give it a fair wind.

Mr. David Evennett: I am delighted to speak in support of the Bill. I welcome its provisions. I hope that it will soon be on the statute book, because it is both necessary and long overdue. Like the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I am proud to be one of the Bill's sponsors. However, there is much work still to be done in Committee to improve it.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on promoting the Bill. I have known my hon. Friend for many years; indeed, I have served on the Education Select Committee with him. I know that he has been a champion of his constituents and of constituency interests over the many years that he has been in the House. I also know that he has been aware of the growing problem of neighbourhood noise nuisance for a considerable time. I am pleased that, having won the ballot, he decided on this Bill as one that deserved to be on the statute book. His speech this morning covered most of the technical part of the Bill, but there is still a great deal more to discuss in Committee.
The second person I warmly congratulate is a constituent of mine, Val Gibson, who lives in Thamesmead. In 1991, she established the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign. Having been a victim of noisy neighbours and having had to move home to survive, she has been a tireless campaigner for a change in the law and firmer action to deal with the noise pollution in general and noisy neighbours in particular.
Over the years, and with increasing success, the campaign, of which I have been a member and a proud supporter, has raised issues, given facts and publicised problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) in a previous Bill and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), while an Environment Minister, made valuable contributions to advancing action on noise nuisance.
The excellent campaign run by The Mail on Sunday also played a major part in the debate on noise nuisance and raised the visibility of the problem among politicians and local authorities. The campaign helped to stimulate the Government to come forward with the Department of the Environment neighbour noise working party, which went through all aspects of the problems and made some proposals.
Val Gibson and the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign collected information, advised sufferers, lobbied hon. Members and Ministers, enlisted media and show business support and help, and organised many publicity events to increase awareness of the problem. Indeed, I remember playing a silent trumpet with Spike Milligan in Covent Garden to highlight the problems of noise nuisance. The issues have also been debated through many other campaigns and celebrity occasions. As a result, cases of considerable hardship and suffering across the country, especially among people who live in inner-city tower blocks where there is greater proximity to one's neighbours, have been highlighted.

Mr. John Carlisle: I add my tribute to Valerie Gibson. My hon. Friend has not mentioned that she was made ill to such an extent that she had to give up work. Quotations in the newspapers said that the noise drove her mad to such an extent that she wanted to go out on the street at 4 o'clock in the morning to hit somebody. Her work in my constituency has been much appreciated, especially by those in the tower blocks. I am happy to add my name to my hon. Friend's rightful congratulations.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that addition to my praise. The Bill is a tribute to Val Gibson, her campaign and many other people who have been agitating for action in the recent past.
The Government too must be congratulated on taking the issue on board, not only because they set up the working party, but because they were willing to listen, discuss and debate the problem and suggest their own ideas. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is taking notes and listening to all the points that are being raised.
The most interesting part of the working party report was its highlighting of the scale of the problem. There were 111,515 registered complaints of neighbour noise nuisance in England and Wales in 1992–93—a rise of 30 per cent. on the previous year. It should be stressed, however, that many more thousands of complaints are never made by people who continue to suffer in silence. Either they do not know how to complain, or they are frightened to complain, or they have simply got used to the noise nuisance and live with it.
In my constituency, I have been inundated with complaints by people who have suffered over the past few years. There are a number of tower blocks in the North End, Erith and Thamesmead wards, where the sound


travels up the lift shaft from one floor to another and causes considerable suffering. There have been two examples of people suffering in a smaller block of flats too. My constituent, Mrs. Daisy Clement, who lives in Bostall ward, has suffered from people playing drums, loud electronic music and group practices for some rock band at all sorts of the day and night, which has caused her and her husband, who are both pensioners, considerable distress.
Another constituent, Mrs. Viki Harrold, was forced to leave her flat in Belvedere because the noise nuisance from do-it-yourself experts downstairs—not music—became too great. One must remember that not only noisy parties and the young cause noise nuisance and affect neighbours. The young play loud music and that is their interest. There are, however, many other perpetrators of noise nuisance, such as DIY enthusiasts who build cupboards and wardrobes late into the night and early in the morning. When they have finished one DIY improvement, they move to another room. They keep on trying to improve their property, yet do not realise the noise that it creates for people living in neighbouring properties, especially flats.
People seem to have their televisions and radios on louder and louder today, which is another problem. Car engines are revved while people tune their cars early on a Sunday morning. There is also general noise such as doors slamming and arguments in households. There has been a tremendous increase in noise in all aspects of life and a particular lack of consideration and understanding of the noise that is being generated.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend will know that, for a time, I ran a discotheque pub in south London—in fact, in his constituency-to-be. Four years of listening to the noise there undoubtedly deafened me. Does he think—I am being quite serious—that people's use of loud music is leading to a deterioration of hearing, which causes them to turn up the television and music ever louder?

Mr. Evennett: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. I should like to put it on record that he ran his establishment superbly and he is fondly remembered as its landlord. It is of concern that the hearing of more young people is being damaged at rock concerts, where the music is getting louder and louder. Although we have tried to protect factory employees from noise, people's hearing is damaged elsewhere, rock concerts being one example.

Mr. Carlisle: I recommend to my hon. Friend muzzled earphones used in the shooting field, which can be turned up and turned down. One can hear what is going on 300 or 400 yd away and what the beaters are saying, but not the shot nearby. Perhaps the Bill should include availability of such earphones for those who suffer.

Mr. Evennett: I am always interested in my hon. Friend's comments, but I am also always mindful of expenditure.
Lack of sleep, nervous distress, illness and severe depression have all been experienced by people who have been subjected to inconsiderate and noisy neighbours. The worst offences are committed during the night. While I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham

(Mr. Couchman) said about other noises during the day which people who work at night and have to sleep during the day must endure, the vast majority of us—even Members of Parliament, especially since the improved sitting hours—get to sleep at some point during the night when one needs it.
Although the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) suggested that the Bill's provisions should operate between 10 pm and 7 am—I am sure that we will discuss it in Committee—the hours between 11 pm and 7 am are the core time during which people should have the right to peace and quiet in their own home and not be interrupted by noise from neighbours that prevents them from relaxing and enjoying a good night's sleep.
I mentioned Val Gibson. Some people move from their flat to another property to escape noisy neighbours, but the vast majority of people cannot do that, because they do not have the finance or whatever. We must therefore accept that it is our responsibility as legislators to put on the statute book a measure that will give those people some respite.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the worst spots for noise problems are high-rise blocks of flats? The tenants of those blocks of flats have no escape, because the only way in which they can escape is by mutual transfer. It is not a very good advertisement to say in a request for mutual transfer, "Come and live in this block of high-rise flats; music 24 hours a day." That does not attract many people.

Mr. Evennett: Of course it does not. We must be aware of the difficulties faced by people in that situation. However, why should people be forced to move because of noise? They obtain their property, they furnish it as they like, their children go to school in the area and their friends and family are nearby. They should not be forced to move, even if they can, to other areas. The problem should be dealt with at source, and not by default with people having to move away.
We have heard this morning that the present position is totally unsatisfactory. The present procedures are too lengthy and too vague, and they require the sufferers to take considerable action themselves, with records and bureaucracy. Perhaps the local authority will take action, but perhaps it will not. We all agree that the present system is totally inadequate to deal with a growing problem.
The Bill will go a long way towards helping to address the problems. It will create a new offence of night-time noise nuisance, and it is based on the principle that individuals should be able to get a good night's sleep without interference from noise from another domestic dwelling. For the first time, the sound will be measured. Clause 3 will be warmly welcomed, because it defines the hours of night. I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), that the equipment required may be expensive, and that it may be difficult to get the readings needed. However, we have at least made a start and we can discuss the technical aspects in Committee. For the first time, we are looking for a measurement and for action that does not require the person who is suffering to keep a diary of their suffering.
The Bill is not meant to be a killjoy measure and it is not meant to prevent the occasional party. We have all gone to occasional parties; the best thing is often to invite


the neighbours, so that everyone is there together. We do not want to stop people having fun or holding the occasional social function at home. What we do want is to make people more aware of the effect of their actions on others, whether they are holding a family celebration, a wedding anniversary party or a birthday party, or whether they are improving their property by gutting it and installing new facilities. The important point is to make people realise the consequences of the noise they are making for other people.
I have always believed strongly in education in this area. We know that in society, some people do not care. They want to have their music, their television or their parties and they do not care about their neighbours. That is extremely regrettable. However, some people are just thoughtless. They do not think about the effect of their actions on others. It would be much appreciated if, within the education system, more skills and information were given to young people about good neighbourliness. We have lost some aspects of the community. Families split up and we do not have extended families. That has created a more selfish society, and we need to get away from that and to make people more aware of the consequences of their actions for the elderly, the sick, those with young children and ordinary individuals who want peace and quiet when they are at home.
I am a great supporter of and listener to Capital radio and my local community station, RTM, on 103.8 FM.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend a shareholder?

Mr. Evennett: No, I am not a shareholder.
It would be a welcome move if radio disc jockeys and presenters encouraged young people not to turn up the music, but to turn it down. I very much regret that some disc jockeys suggest that one should turn up the music to appreciate it.
We heard earlier about the Beatles in the 1960s. In the 1960s, I was a soul fan and liked Dusty Springfield and people like that rather than the Beatles. However, the important point about music in domestic establishments today is, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, that the equipment is far more effective than the little record players and transistors that many of us had in those dim, distant days. The noise that one can get from modern equipment is incredible.
The parents, as the primary educators, the schools and the media should encourage people to think. There are concerts, parties and discos where people can hear loud music, if that is what they want. However, people should be taught that when they are at home, the volume should be turned down in the interests of good neighbourliness and in the interests of the rest of the family.
Although I support almost all the Bill, I would like the instant fines to be increased from £40. An instant fine is a good step forward, as we are looking for instant action. However, in today's society, a £40 fine is inadequate punishment for people who persistently make a loud noise and it will not deter them; it will not even hurt in many cases. It is therefore important that, in Committee, we have discussions to see whether we can up the fine to a more realistic figure. Some hon. Members today have suggested £100; that is a possibility.
There are variations in how good local environmental health officers are. In some areas, they are extremely good; in Bexley, we are fortunate in having a good department. However, people in other areas have written to me, because of my role in the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign, saying that their environmental health officers are apparently not interested in dealing with the problem.
Although I welcome the fact that environmental health officers will have more powers and opportunities, I have two concerns. First, I am concerned about the safety of the environmental health officer on the front line who has to go to a noisy property—a point that must worry us all. Secondly, we do not know whether, as the Bill is an adoptive measure, local authorities will adopt the provisions in their area. We as Members of Parliament shall have to educate local authorities and encourage them to adopt the provisions. Local authorities will, however, have the choice.

Mr. John Carlisle: The other thing that local authorities will inevitably do is squeal that they do not have the funds. Perhaps my hon. Friend will suggest to them that they will be more popular if they spend time on implementing the provisions in the Bill rather than zealously enforcing certain regulations, especially those concerning health and safety and food. Regrettably, that takes up a lot of their time, upsets many people and causes the loss of many jobs. Local authorities would be better spending their time on the Bill.

Mr. Evennett: I endorse that absolutely, and I hope that local authorities will not whinge, but will—

Ms Joan Ruddock: rose—

Mr. Evennett: I thought that we might get a reaction from the Opposition Front Bench.
I hope that local authorities will use their budgets in the most effective way. I believe that they can take action within the budgets that they have been allocated if they establish priorities, and I think that noise control should be one of those.

Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman said that he endorsed what his hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said. Will he reconsider that? Surely we do not want local authorities to do anything less than their duty under health and safety law, especially in connection with food, which the hon. Member for Luton, North mentioned. We do not want to have to choose between foods poisoning and noise.

Mr. Evennett: Right. I did not endorse that point; of course local authorities must carry out their statutory duties. I endorsed my hon. Friend's fear that local authorities would whinge that they did not have enough money. I think that they have enough if they channel those resources, of course into health and safety, and into food hygiene, but also into dealing with noise nuisance and the problems that so many of our constituents have suffered. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) misinterpreted what I said.
The Bill represents a great step forward. If it became law, procedures would be quicker and a third party, the local authority environmental health officer doing the


measurement, would be involved. We have all had letters from individual sufferers—elderly people, single parents and others—who are frightened of the neighbours who are making a noise and perpetrating the problem.
Under the Bill, those people would not have to take the action in court themselves, or be responsible for gathering the information, presenting it and pushing the local authority. It would be down to the local authority to take the case over. I am sure that that would encourage many more people to present their problems rather than suffering in silence as many of them have done, at the cost of their health. That is good news.
The Bill represents a positive move. We must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North for the work that he has put in and for the way in which he presented the Bill today. We have a good Bill before us, and it has had almost universal support on both sides of the Chamber. That is welcome, because the problem has affected all our constituencies and all our people.
I believe that the Bill will deal with the problem of noise nuisance. It appears relatively uncomplicated and workable—both essential ingredients in any legislation. But some doubts and concerns remain. We need the Bill to reach the statute book as soon as possible, and we must campaign to ensure that local authorities implement it, and that its provisions are used to the full for the benefit of all citizens.
Today we have seen an important step forward in the fight against noisy neighbours, and I am delighted to support the Bill. However, education by parents, schools and community organisations, as well as legislation, is necessary. Legislation cannot cure all problems. Education, information and publicity can all help to make society better, so that the people suffering from noisy neighbours have some respite.
However, legislation is important, and the Bill is good news. But there is more to be done, away from the sphere of legislation, in educating people about their community responsibilities and in encouraging them to turn the volume down. Once the Bill is law, many people who now suffer from noisy neighbours will get some respite, some action and some results. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the legislative process, and I look forward to its implementation.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on his success in the ballot, and on his wisdom in choosing this subject for his private Member's Bill. It is a privilege for me to be associated with him, as a sponsor of the Bill. In passing, I also pay tribute to him in his role as a constituency Member of Parliament, because I had the privilege of living in Ealing for several years, and I remember that, when my hon. Friend was selected for Ealing, North, it was regarded as a marginal constituency. It is a tribute to him that, by 1987, he had a majority of 15,000—although that may have been helped by the fact that his opponent in that election was named Benn.
Tens of thousands of our constituents listen to an Australian soap opera whose musical jingle runs
Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours",

but they do not seem to pay much attention to it, because the problem of noise is generated by bad neighbours—by anti-social, selfish, thoughtless individuals who put their pleasure first and do not consider the impact of their thoughtlessness on other people.
Those people may enjoy loud music, but they forget that the music they enjoy may be a pain for someone else. Noisy parties may be fun for the drunks who take part, but they are preventing other people from sleeping and from exercising their right to enjoy the privacy of their own home.
That fact was brought home to me during one of my surgeries, when 20 or 25 people from one of the high-rise blocks that were one of the great innovations of the 1960s came to see me. When I asked, "What is your problem?", they replied, "Mr. Campbell." Mr. Campbell's particular skill was to turn his hi-fi unit on at 8 o'clock at night and to keep it going until 8 o'clock in the morning. That meant that the neighbours all too often had a sleepless night, and were always worried that they would have to go to work the next day unable to do as well at their jobs as they would have liked.
There is no doubt that the problem of noise has been aggravated by social trends in recent years. The problem is worse in the high-rise flats in which so many people live. In many such blocks, anti-social behaviour multiplies, and one has only to go to any council estate to see graffiti on the walls. One hears also of many other forms of anti-social behaviour, of which drugs and noise are but two.
It is a tragedy that the local authorities have been so slow to react to the mushrooming of anti-social behaviour. By their failure to react quickly, they have given an incentive for such behaviour to continue.
The problem has been aggravated elsewhere, as well as in modern high-rise blocks. Those of us who have lived in the modern purpose-built flats that have appeared over the past 25 years have frequently found that they are not as well insulated against noise as they might be. That means that a record player in one flat can be heard only too easily in another.
The provisions of the Bill are not mandatory for local authorities, but permissive. There is no doubt that some local authorities will say rightly that noise is not a major problem, as noise and noisy parties is more of an urban problem than a rural one, but some urban local authorities do not treat the problem as seriously as they ought to. When the Conservatives controlled Barnet council, they instituted a noise patrol that dealt with a large number of cases. When Labour and the Liberal Democrats took control, they redirected spending and wound up the patrol. The patrol was doing a lot of good work, and its absence has annoyed a large number of my constituents.

Mr. John Carlisle: Have not we had a semi-indication of that today from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock)? She tried to refute my allegation that, in many cases, environmental health officers seemed to be spending a lot more time building small empires with what seem to be trivial regulations—some of which have been passed by the House. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a possibility of political connotations. We as Conservatives see the very real problem that noise is creating and believe that local authorities should attach great importance to helping to


alleviate that problem. Is that not confirmed by the fact that the Conservative Benches have been semi-packed all morning, while the Opposition Benches have been very sparsely attended?

Mr. Marshall: I do not wish to attack the London borough of Lewisham too much. I fought Lewisham in 1974 and Lewisham fought back and won, but I noticed recently that an hon. Member who lives there decided that the education system in Lewisham was not good enough for his children.

Ms Ruddock: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to comment on the intervention by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). There is no question in my mind that local authorities—whether they are Labour, Liberal Democrat or Tory-controlled—ought to carry out their duties with respect to their citizens in all areas, including health and safety, food regulation and noise. If authorities find that they do not have enough resources, perhaps the fault lies with the Government.

Mr. Marshall: I am surprised that the hon. Lady decided to intervene, as I suspect that she will make a speech later. I resent the suggestion that local authorities have been short-changed by the Government, and I speak with the authority of one who served for four years as chairman of a finance committee. Before we gained control of Ealing council, we were told by the Labour party that it was terribly efficient, but soon after we gained control, we found that we could squeeze millions of pounds out of local authority spending without affecting the quality of service.
If the hon. Lady looks at the statistics from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, she will see that there are huge fluctuations in the relative efficiency of different local authorities. If authorities such as Lewisham were to become as efficient as other authorities, they would have plenty of money to spend, both on improving the quality of the education service and on dealing with problems such as noise. It is no argument for her to say that the council does not have enough money—the council must become more efficient.

Ms Ruddock: rose—

Mr. Marshall: Before the hon. Lady jumps up again, I should remind her that the Audit Commission has pointed out that local education authorities could save hundreds of millions of pounds by getting rid of surplus school places. If they did so, they could improve the quality of education, and the hon. Lady would have nothing to jump up about—but she can jump up again if she wants.

Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman makes a great mistake in attacking Lewisham, as the very bodies to which he has referred frequently congratulate the council—as does the Department of the Environment—on its excellent delivery of public services and its good housekeeping and careful husbandry of resources.

Mr. Marshall: All I can say is that a colleague of the hon. Lady decided that—while it may be good enough for her constituents—the education service in Lewisham was not good enough for his two children.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. May I inquire what this has to do with the Second Reading of the Bill? I think nothing.

Mr. Marshall: I shall not beg to differ with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I shall wish to catch your eye for an Adjournment Debate later. Local authority spending is an important part of the Bill, as authorities have been given a permissive, rather than a mandatory, power. It is up to them to decide how they exercise that power.
I shall refer quickly to one or two items. The £40 fixed penalty is too low. Some 40 or 50 noisy people at a late-night party in London would have to pay only £1 each—what is a quid at two o'clock in the morning?—and the fine will be paid. I should like the fixed penalty to be as much as £100, as that is more realistic.
I welcome the power of seizure contained in the Bill. If local authorities were to take away the noisy equipment, and did so once or twice, that would act as a severe disincentive for people to carry on with late night parties.
This is a positive Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, on introducing it. I wish it fair speed in Committee; I am sure that it will have an interesting Committee stage, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has volunteered to sit on it. He may create some noise—whether he will create any light is a moot point.

Ms Joan Ruddock: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on his success in the ballot and on introducing the Bill, which I am pleased to say has our general support. I also wish to express my understanding of his absence at this time, and to add to the tributes that others have paid to Philip Lawrence.
The Bill would implement some of the main recommendations contained in the report of the Government's working party on noise, which was published nearly a year ago. In particular, as we have heard, it will create a new criminal offence of night-time noise, and it will clarify the law relating to the seizure and confiscation of noise-making equipment. We believe that it would have been much more satisfactory had the Government managed to conclude their consultations in better time and had introduced comprehensive measures to tackle noise in last year's Environment Bill, as we urged them to do.
Measures to tackle the chronic and worsening problem of noise nuisance are long overdue, as all hon. Members have said. Noise, defined as unwanted sound, can cause extreme stress, exhaustion and other health problems. Many of us have had to deal with constituents suffering utter frustration and misery owing to noise nuisance. The problem is a real one for thousands of people, and it is still growing.
Other hon. Members have quoted the figures for 1993–94. In that year, there were 131,000 complaints about noise from domestic premises—a rise of more than 10 per cent. on the previous year—and it was the seventh consecutive year in which complaints rose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) reminded us, noise disputes are reported to have been responsible for 17 deaths, and the true figure may be higher.


The Association of Metropolitan Authorities tells us that complaints about noisy neighbours have increased by 700 per cent. since 1978. Of the 131,153 complaints in 1993–94, more than 32,000 were dealt with through mediation and informal resolution, and more than 5,000 abatement notices were served. However, the vast majority of complaints were not resolved, and the number of court actions remains tiny. In that same period, there were just 441 prosecutions, and 372 convictions. Of all the complaints made, only one in 297 resulted in a court prosecution and one in 352 in a conviction. That cannot be right.
About 60 per cent. of all mediated neighbour disputes involve noise, and estimates of the success rate range from 40 to 77 per cent. Mediation is cost-effective and usually costs between £200 and £300. If intervention is early enough, it can save local authorities a great deal of money, as well as save the time of the police and the courts. Mediation services are a valuable resource when dealing with noise nuisance, and I wish to place on record my recognition of their role. I also wish to pay tribute to my local service, which has been extremely helpful to me and to many of my constituents. Obviously, mediation does not solve all noise disputes. The Bill does not tackle all noise disputes, but deals only with night-time noise.
The causes of some noises are more amenable to mediation than others. Night-time noise problems are especially difficult to mediate. Frequently, people are more belligerent and, in my experience, often suffering from the effects of alcohol or drugs. Noise nuisance and other forms of anti-social behaviour are often perpetrated by vulnerable people who are unsupervised under the guise of care in the community. Such people can cause havoc in a neighbourhood and neither mediation nor the provisions of the Bill will deal with their problems, which are more deep-seated and require much greater application from the Government to provide for them both in the health service and in community services.
I hope that the Bill will succeed in providing the first penalty for the careless, selfish and sometimes criminal householder who causes night-time nuisance. I know exactly what such noise means in practice. In my very own street, in my inner-city constituency, we have had a succession of noise nuisances over the past four years.
One couple, who live at the opposite end of the street, told me that, for the two years before I moved in, there had been continuous problems with their neighbours. When they came to me, they had already suffered for two years. They had a petition signed by 18 neighbouring households testifying to the extent of the problem. In a note that they put through my letterbox, the woman wrote:
We are a normal family. We don't object to parties—anything within limits—but this is too much to bear.
Her husband is a postman getting up at 4.30 in the morning. They have a child of five who has to go to school. She also goes out to work, yet they could get no peace at home and no sleep at night. Life had become utterly impossible.
That problem was brought to me in June 1994. It was resolved only two months ago, despite all the efforts of the relevant authorities, as well as my efforts. During that period of persistent noise nuisance, various neighbours who were home owners, and an elderly woman who had to be rehoused by the local authority, moved away. My constituent wrote to me:

people are being driven out, the police carry no weight whatsoever, though I may add, without them on the end of the phone I too feel may have gone by now. I have also had great support from the EHO, who have sent us the 'Noise Pack', twice now they have sent letters to No. 18, so the next step is to take court proceedings which I have reservations of doing for obvious reasons.
That constituent was courageous and persisted in trying to deal with a problem that was not hers alone but the whole street's. However, the problems got worse and worse.
After the first offending household had been somewhat quieted through the procedures of the local authority and threatened with eviction—it was a council tenancy—the woman's immediate neighbour vacated his home and let it to a so-called care in the community organisation. That organisation, for a substantial amount of money, brought four young people—which became a succession of young people—into the house, all of whom were on probation and none of whom was supervised in the residence. The Government require no registration of such small homes. From then on, there was a reign of tyranny in our street.
Fortunately, we keep such long hours in the House that I would often get home when the worst was over. People could not believe that I had not heard every bit of the loud music, the shouting, the motor bikes, the throwing, the arguing and, once, an axe being thrown into the neighbour's garden. That havoc could not be easily arrested. Recordings were taken; things quietened down. By the time that the case was to come to court, it was said that new recordings were required and so on and so forth.
I shall not continue with that sad story, but it is a miracle that someone did not commit an act of violence against the perpetrators. Those responsible for the young people showed a complete lack of responsibility. What is more, that illustrates the amount of time, effort, expense and frustration involved when one uses the present law.
For all those reasons, we welcome the Bill. We congratulate Val Gibson and the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign, as well as all those constituents who have tried valiantly to find some solution to the problems. Much more comprehensive action is required, however, to deal with cases of persistent anti-social behaviour, when noise is used as a weapon alongside threats and often actual violence.
In July last year, Labour proposed to tackle such anti-social behaviour, suggesting a number of remedies in our document "A Quiet Life". They were widely recognised, appreciated and applauded by everyone except the Government, who dismissed them as "merely window dressing"—those were Ministers' words. On reflection, however—perhaps because of the amount of support—Ministers have taken them up, I am glad to say, albeit in a more limited form, in part V of the new Housing Bill, which has little else to recommend it.
Although we welcome the Noise Bill and its intentions, the Labour party remains concerned about aspects of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) raised the substantial technical concerns expressed by his local authority. I hope that we shall hear some response from the Minister to those concerns. I must raise a number of other concerns as well as some that I have in common with my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting mentioned resources. The financial memorandum states:
The additional cost for local authorities to enforce the night noise offence is estimated to be between £1 and £3 million per year.


A few minutes ago, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and I had an exchange on that very question. How do local authorities prioritise, when they are required to implement so much legislation on behalf of their citizens?
I fear that the financial memorandum grossly underestimates the amount of money that would be required for effective implementation of the Bill as proposed. Dividing even the maximum figure of £3 million by each of the 405 local authorities in England and Wales would give just over £7,000 per authority. In the survey of local authorities published yesterday by the National Society for Clean Air, an alarming 70 per cent. of those who responded identified lack of staff and resources as a major constraint on their ability to control noise nuisance—it was by far the biggest reason cited for local authorities having difficulties dealing with the problem. I am sure that that was the problem that confronted the London borough of Barnet.
I know that the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Ealing. North are taking notes on his behalf. I wonder whether he has estimated how many local authorities will adopt the provisions and how much, on average, implementation will cost each authority. Alternatively, perhaps the Minister would like to give the Government's view—I suspect that they assisted with the calculations.
Furthermore, as the offence is specifically night-time noise, it will be essential for local authorities to provide out-of-hours services if they are to implement the proposals with any effect. In an area like mine, local authority officers would probably feel unable to go if they had to go alone. They either have to get a police escort or go in pairs. such are the dangers of dealing with night-time noise in many areas. Given that local authorities are currently cutting services to meet the Government's latest demands in respect of revenue support settlements, that may well be impossible.
Even if local authorities do implement the measures effectively, they will not benefit from the moneys raised by fixed-fine penalties. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ealing, North considered allowing local authorities to retain the sums so raised, as they are able to do with parking fines. If so, why did he decide against it?
The level of fines proposed is one of the few points on which I agree with Conservative Members's criticisms of the Bill. I do not believe that £40 is consistent with deterrence, and I doubt very much whether victims of noise nuisance would consider it sufficient punishment.
We are unable to understand why the proposed powers are adoptive rather than mandatory. The hon. Member for Ealing, North outlined his reasoning, which is that not all local authorities face the same severity of problem. If any local authority is faced with just one such problem, that authority owes it to the council tax payer householder to see to it that the problem is dealt with. That means that there should be mandatory powers and that action should not be a matter of choice.
If it is a matter of choice, it is likely to give rise to a situation in which behaviour that constitutes a criminal offence on one side of a street would be perfectly legal—perhaps not perfectly legal, but at least not subject to redress—on the other side if that street happens to be

divided by a local authority boundary. The consequence could be even greater disparity between the noise nuisance services provided by local authorities in future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): Does the hon. Lady accept that the provision of a mandatory service across the country will inevitably cost more?

Ms Ruddock: I can only deduce from the Minister's question that he is perfectly happy that some local authorities will not use the powers, either because they cannot find the money or perhaps because they do not give sufficient priority to dealing with noise nuisance. The Minister's question shows yet again that the Government are interested not in people but—

Mr. Tom Pendry: They are interested in window dressing.

Ms Ruddock: Indeed, as my hon. Friend says, the Government are interested only in window dressing. They support the Bill but are not prepared to ensure that local authorities have the necessary resources to give an equal right to all our citizens to have noise nuisance dealt with effectively.

Mr. Jenkin: I apologise for not hearing the beginning of the hon. Lady's speech. It is interesting that Conservatives are usually accused of over-centralising and being too dictatorial to local authorities, but when we want to give local authorities the choice to decide how to handle issues such as noise abatement, according to local circumstances and their judgment, the hon. Lady wants to centralise and control. Does not that say something about the hon. Lady's party?

Ms Ruddock: If I may say so, it says something about the hon. Gentleman. What he is proposing does not mean choice for local authorities; he is proposing that citizens should have unequal rights. He is saying that some citizens should have the right to have noise nuisance at night subject to redress by their local authority, while others should not. That cannot be the proper way for the Government to proceed. We have often sought choice for local authorities to do the extra things that citizens would have them do, but it should be a common baseline that all citizens have this particular fundamental right. We do not wish local authorities to have to decide whether to provide the service according to the difficulties they face under the revenue support grant settlement by the Government.

Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Lady agree that there are very great differences between urban areas, such as those that she and I represent, where noise pollution is a major problem, and rural areas where it may not he a problem? In the real countryside, where people live at significant distances from each other, noise is not a problem at all. To impose a national solution to a local problem is sometimes a mistake.

Ms Ruddock: I wonder where the hon. Gentleman lives and what newspapers he reads. Has he never heard of the noise nuisances that occur in the countryside? Although the Bill would not cover the problem, raves are now one of the greatest problems for people living in the countryside. Noise nuisance is not just an urban problem. In a village, one anti-social neighbour can cause distress to others as great as in any town or city. Those affected


have a right to redress, and that is why the Opposition say that powers should be given to all local authorities and they should not have to opt in.
Measures to tackle the chronic and worsening problem of noise nuisance are long overdue. We already know that the provisions that exist are unacceptable to victims, most of whom are extremely dissatisfied and would continue to be if they found that their local authority would not tackle the problem whereas a neighbouring authority would. It would be preferable for all local authorities to be required to implement those measures and to receive appropriate support from Government to do so.
Clarification is also needed over the proposed night-time noise limit of 35 dB. I assume that that will be the limit used by the Secretary of State, if he has to implement the Bill—perhaps the Under-Secretary would clarify that for us. Defining noise nuisance is problematic. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West referred to some of the differences in the ways in which people perceive noise and how they are affected by it. Many hon. Members will be aware of the survey on attitudes to noise carried out by the building research establishment in 1991. One of the main findings was the great variety in the acceptability of noises. Car alarms and people arguing were far more objectionable than children playing or people laughing, even if the decibel level was the same. In other words, the type and quality of noise is as important as the level of noise in determining nuisance.
Specialists in the subject are also concerned that the 35 dB limit does not take adequate account of low frequencies and, in particular, that the "A" weighting used to adjust sound measurement to mimic the human ear does not adequately describe bass music. As we have heard today, that type of music—low, persistent beat music—is the most common source of night-time noise complaints.
Labour would welcome a clarification of how the chosen limit will take account of ambient noise levels, which in rural areas—I concede the point to the hon. Member for Hendon, South—are very different from those in urban areas. It seems unlikely that any one limit can prove satisfactory, and the Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to determine different noise levels for different circumstances.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ealing, North has considered that local authorities might play an important role in advising the Secretary of State on what levels are appropriate to different areas and different circumstances. Areas are different, and it could be useful to involve local authorities in trying to establish how to deal with the measurement of noise, as the Bill provides.
I want to address the important issue of the relationship between the local authority officers who will implement the Bill's measures and the police. Many of those officers are concerned that attempting to implement measures to deal with night-time noise nuisance and the confiscation of equipment may put them in potentially dangerous and difficult situations. Unless they receive adequate support and co-operation from the police, we believe that those local authority officers will be unable to make full and effective use of their new powers. Knowing the enormous pressures that the police are under and the shortage of officers on the beat, does the hon. Member for Ealing, North, or the Minister, believe that the police will be able to provide adequate back-up if local authorities undertake those new duties?
We seek clarification on a further issue. We wish to know whether the equipment that can be seized will include items such as records, cassette tapes and compact discs. Will do-it-yourself equipment and tools such as drills also be included? What is the status, if any, of noisy animals, such as the constantly barking dog that is often left alone at home overnight?
We are delighted that the Bill makes provision for the seizure of equipment and clarifies what can be taken. Although one hon. Member stated that such seizures had not presented a problem to his authority, it certainly has been such in my area, where, in one desperate case with which I had to deal, equipment was eventually seized by the police, but the courts made them give the equipment back. The police felt extremely angry about that, and felt that their position had been undermined. The case has not been successfully resolved, partly as a consequence of the court's intervention.
I have raised many points for clarification, and I hope that we can hear either from the hon. Member for Ealing, North, should he be able to return to the Chamber, or from the Minister, as it is important for us to get a better measure of the Bill before it proceeds to Committee. Having said that, I hope very much that it will receive a successful Second Reading and that it will take its place in Committee. It is but a small measure, but we should like to make it as effective as possible in the battle to contain noise and anti-social behaviour. The Opposition will co-operate with the hon. Member for Ealing, North when his Bill reaches Committee.

Lady Olga Maitland: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on introducing the Bill and I appreciate his reasons for not being in the Chamber right now. He undoubtedly had a duty of friendship and loyalty to attend the funeral of Philip Lawrence, and I am particularly sympathetic in that regard as it was due to Philip Lawrence's tragic death that my private Member's Bill—the Offensive Weapons Bill--came into being. I therefore add my tribute to Mr. Lawrence.
I also wish to stress the importance of the Noise Bill. I suspect that, if one went to a pub or coffee bar and asked people which topic was more on their minds—the Scott report or the measures that my hon. Friend has introduced to try to control noise nuisance, which has destroyed people's lives—there would undoubtedly be a chorus of responses about how noise afflicted people's lives, making the subject of the Scott report a secondary issue.
No one needs bad neighbours. Everyone is entitled to a decent life. For years, however, neighbours have been suffering in silence, frustrated by the fact that the police do not regard noise as a matter for them unless violence is involved. Local authorities have also been reluctant to take action, and have perhaps felt somewhat powerless.
Desperate sufferers of noise have only one recourse: to take legal action at their own cost, and that takes time. The scale of the problem is reflected in the enormous post bag that I received, containing more than 200 letters from angry people. One of the letters—from a woman who lives in Sheffield, Yorkshire—sums up the passion and feeling that people have in this regard:
We have personal experience of a neighbour from hell. 
The noise was horrendous day and night. My thoughts alternated between suicide and murder.


We must understand how deeply people feel about noise and how difficult it is for people to complain about it. Those who make noise have become intimidating and quite violent if people complain—for example, people have been stabbed, shot and beaten up for objecting to noise. In 1994, a classical pianist was gaoled because he set fire to the home of an elderly woman who dared to protest about his daily nine hours of practising.
The scale of noise complaints has increased over the years, particularly noise from neighbours. Last year, there were 112,000 recorded noise complaints—and I am certain that many more complaints could have been made—mainly as a result of bawdy parties, blaring music systems, barking dogs and quarrelling families.
Noise can have a serious effect on people's health—it can cause mental scars of stress, anxiety and depression, and the physical changes are well documented. I draw hon. Members' attention to other letters that I have received. One from a person who lives in south London states:
It has affected my health and I am now under the Doctor's care. I have become so depressed about the noise, the lack of sleep and the amount of time and money involved in taking this action, that I regularly take antidepressants.
I have also received a letter from one of my constituents, which states:
We have only had one decent night's sleep this year and that was only because we went and stayed at a friend's. 
My wife and I are tired, stressed and suffering from depression. In short our life is being made hell and we are becoming ill because of this man.
The powers in this Bill are undoubtedly important.
Some hon. Members have asked why we are only talking about noise that is made at night, when there can be so much aggravating noise by day. I feel for people who have retired after a lifetime of work and toil and who are trying to enjoy peace during the day. Is music any more tolerable during the day? Nevertheless, I do not wish to denigrate the importance of putting a curfew on noise at night.
The powers we give to local authorities must enable them to tackle these problems robustly and take reasonable steps to investigate excessive noise. One issue is the benchmark of acceptable noise. We live in a noisy society. Even at night, we sleep at an average 35-dB level. That is considered normal. It is equivalent to sleeping in a bedroom with closed, single-glazed windows, facing on to a busy suburban street. Moreover, two thirds of British homes are exposed to noise above that limit.
Of all noise, noise at night is undoubtedly the most distressing. It is interesting to consider the experience of Westminster city council, which has led the way in tackling noise. It has noise patrols which operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That has undoubtedly brought relief to residents. That council's experience is that, in 90 or even 95 per cent. of cases, people will respond positively to a polite and courteous approach to turn down the sound. The real question is how we deal with the hard core of people who do not respond and cause hell for everyone else.
There are other problems. It is not just a matter of sounds coming from the domestic property next door, the flat above or the house nearby. Noise at night from

other sources should be included in the Bill. For example, cockerels crow at night and with the early dawn. That is not just a rural issue. Many people living in suburban areas, including my constituency, like to keep a henhouse and cockerels in their gardens. That may seem romantic, but it is not—they make a dreadful piercing sound.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: My hon. Friend does not represent a rural seat. Is she saying that people who live in the countryside should no longer be able to keep cockerels, a tradition going back many centuries? Country people often find that people from, for example, Sutton and Cheam, move to the countryside and then kick up a fuss about rural traditions.

Lady Olga Maitland: I understand my hon. Friend's comments about cockerels in a rural environment. However, he must remember that the noise of cockerels in a urban area, where there is a concentrated population, cannot be absorbed and is therefore much more intense. Other problems include dogs barking in gardens and car doors slamming. Those are not strictly neighbour nuisances, but they are close to that.
We are talking about how we can improve the Bill. I have a few reservations about it. It is an empowering Bill. It does not make it obligatory for local authorities to set up noise patrols. Local authorities are mixed in the degree of seriousness that they attach to noise. About 65 per cent. of local authorities in England and Wales do not provide a 24-hour service. About 86 run some form of service, and about 19 run a weekend service.
Let us consider the experience of my constituency. Sutton is a Liberal Democrat-controlled council which claims to be strong on the environment and on environmental pollution. However, it employs just two people, once a week, to investigate noise nuisance complaints. In the past year, it has received about 1,200 complaints. Two people working once a week will not get very far when there are so many frustrated residents.
What worries me is how to put pressure on local authorities to take the issue seriously. Obviously I want to encourage all council tax payers to press the matter loudly, firmly and persistently. If they do not like what their local authorities are doing, for heaven's sake they should vote them out. The Liberal Democrats in Sutton do not deserve to retain their so-called green label when they are manifestly not taking action against environmental polluters.
I welcome the Bill. It is important that, at long last, people will have a swift remedy. There will be clearly defined standards of what is acceptable when mediation fails. A sharp rap on the knuckles or in the pocket with a noise ticket will focus minds. Perhaps the level of fine, which is set at £40, should be raised, or perhaps it should be flexible. I agree with hon. Members that £40 is not a real deterrent.
Neighbours should not have to suffer months and months of guggling around by local authorities and environmental health officers, which in the end achieves absolutely nothing. Residents want action. The Bill gives them the means to take action. In future, it will be closed season for noise. The tyranny of noise vandals can end. I warmly welcome the Bill.

Mr. Richard Alexander: It is a privilege to speak in this debate, which has attracted wide interest both within and outside the House. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who is in his place, and I welcome his Bill.
Apart from physical violence, probably nothing other than noise causes so much distress, offence and misery, and results in such a lowering of the quality of life of innocent people. People should have the right to enjoy their homes in peace and quiet, and the selfishness of noise makers should have the attention of the law. The Bill will enable that.
Hon. Members have given examples of constituents complaining about excessive noise which councils feel unable to do much about. They require detailed evidence, collated over quite a long period, detailed records, and so on. The net result of council inquiries is continuing misery for the person suffering from the noise until something is done and often, as my hon. Friends have said, unpleasant retaliation from the people causing the nuisance and their friends in the meantime.
The law is clearly unsatisfactory, and statistics show how ineffective it is. In 1993–94, there were roughly 111,000 complaints of neighbour or domestic noise to local authorities. Of those 111,000, statutory nuisance was confirmed in only 40,000, and only 3,600 abatement notices were served. As a result of those notices, only 247 prosecutions took place and 220 convictions were obtained. That shows that the law is deeply unsatisfactory.
Those 111,000 complainants cannot all have been completely mischievous and without merit. They took the trouble to do something about the misery that noise was creating in their lives. The law is also unsatisfactory because local authorities are uncertain about the extent of their powers. That may account for the minimal number of prosecutions that are undertaken. I understand—it has not been contradicted—that local authorities will welcome a specific power to act such as that in the Bill.
I am afraid that, in daily life these days, I find people more and more selfish. Music—if one can call it that—is one of the worst examples of noise nuisance. Barking dogs also come very near the top of the list. Such selfish acts cause sleep deprivation and damage to health. Often, violence results, and it is sad that, when it does, both parties are brought before the magistrates court and both are bound over as though they were equally at fault. It is a useless remedy and gives no satisfaction at all to the person suffering from the noise. When both parties are bound over, the perpetrator continues his or her activity, often to a greater extent, while taunting the other person that they can do nothing about it. Moreover, the person who complains is made to feel equally to blame. That must be unsatisfactory.
To make noise above a certain level should be a criminal offence, both during the night and during the day. I believe that the Bill does not go far enough. The matter should not just be left to local byelaws or local interpretation. Making noise above a certain level needs to be a criminal offence per se, just as not wearing a seat belt is. It should be a law like the others that we all have to abide by. Life should be made just as unpleasant for the perpetrator as he or she makes it for the victim.
I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that the Bill could go further. It still relies on warning notices, it still relies on local authority action, and it does not provide the instant

action or instant prosecution that many of us would like. By instant action, I mean an immediate summons to the magistrates court, as applies when one is caught speeding or driving with excess alcohol in the body.
On 30 October 1994, the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), announced that he was setting up a working party to identify quicker and simpler remedies to the problem of neighbour noise. The Bill is the result, but I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that it could go further. The person suffering from noise in the middle of the night who complains about all the nuisances that we have been discussing will not get any more sleep that night, the next night or any subsequent night until the local authority has gone through its procedures.
I grant that the procedures under the Bill are better than those available previously, but I seek from the Bill the instant remedy that I thought the Government sought to provide. Such an instant remedy was one of the proposals contained in the package of measures announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 12 December last. He said that action was to be undertaken as soon as possible, and an instant remedy should have been included in the Bill.
So long as making noise above a certain level is only a civil offence, people will continue to have to take the law into their own hands, and complaints about noise and disturbance from neighbours will increase. Controls on neighbour noise must be strengthened. The Bill is a start, but it is only a start. I draw the Under-Secretary of State's attention to his press release on 12 December last. He said that the Government wanted to create a new offence dealing with excessive noise from domestic premises during the night-time period. He added that that would
require new legislative powers and we will look for an early opportunity to introduce these". 
The Bill gives my hon. Friend that opportunity, and I hope that he will table suitable amendments in Committee to achieve just that.
I have a further concern, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) alluded. It relates to timing. There are two completely opposite problems. The first concerns when night time is proposed to start. A perfectly lawful activity that is a little noisier than one might wish could still be going on between 11 pm and midnight. To cut off that noise at 11 pm might be a little inappropriate, especially if a conviction resulted. I suggest that midnight might be a more appropriate time.
There is, however, a totally contrary concern, which may be thought to conflict with what I have just said. Noise is also offensive during the day, and 11 o'clock may not be early enough. Many people are shift workers or work at night, such as those who run our hospitals and transport services. Their sleep patterns are different from the norm, but they are as susceptible as the rest of us to excessive noise. That is the other side of the coin, and I hope that that, too, can be considered in Committee.
As a result of what is happening these days, people find that their general health is being badly affected through stress and lack of sleep. The result is something akin to road rage: anger, rage and hatred. In many cases, violence also results, and who can blame the victims of noise if


that sometimes happens? The Bill will prevent some of that. It does not go far enough, but it deserves all our support.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I also be the first to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) back to the Chamber from his duties in his constituency? May I be allowed to put on record the fact that everyone who has spoken has heaped praise on my hon. Friend for his work in preparing and introducing the Bill?
Much of the discussion has been about the scope of the Bill. I echo some of the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) about its possible deficiencies, in that it confines itself to night-time noise and to neighbourly noise. Much of the noise that affects people's residences comes not from other people's residences but from commercial and publicly owned concerns outside the domestic environment with which the Bill deals.
I fully accept that we should perhaps tackle the issue in bite-sized pieces rather than try to be too comprehensive, but I still hope that those aspects will be taken on board. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North studies the record of the debate, he may find good meat to feast on when he is thinking about amendments for the Committee stage.
I shall now pick up something said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who unfortunately cannot be in the Chamber at the moment. He got dragged into a minor altercation about the role of local authority environmental health officers and their attitude to forms of regulation other than noise regulation. If we could persuade the environmental health officers to tackle the problem of noise abatement with the same terrifying enthusiasm with which they tackle food safety, we should probably have a riot on our hands about their intrusion into our lives.
It is worth analysing what drives environmental health officers on the food safety issue—it is usually a "more than my job's worth" mentality. The way in which the regulations have been framed—the European legislative and regulatory framework is as much at fault as ours—means that there is a liability on the officers if they fail to enforce them. For noise abatement there is no such liability. Perhaps there should be.
Perhaps there should be more than a mere discretionary duty on local authorities to enforce noise abatement. Perhaps there should be more of a legal requirement, so that in case of failure, sanctions could be imposed on the local authority. Perhaps, also, there should be less of a legal obligation on local authorities to reduce the temperature of our cheese to below 6 deg C, which spoils its flavour, and all the other silly things that people are forced to do. I offer that as a countervailing thought.
One of the factors that drove me to take part in the debate was the case of "Mrs. Smith". I call her that because I want to maintain her anonymity, but she will be a familiar figure to almost every right hon. and hon. Member of the House, because she is typical of the

problem that I hope the Bill will tackle. She is a dear, sweet lady who has saved enough money to live in her own home and maintain herself. This is not, incidentally, a problem caused by high-rise construction. She lives in a modern, well-spaced housing area called Highwoods, which is an attractive place to live.
She has been unfortunate, in that a rather selfish young man has moved in next door. He started out by causing a great deal of noise at night with music and cars revving. She naturally involved the environmental health department. It is appalling that, ultimately, the local authority will advise her to take out an injunction against the neighbour. It is absurd that ordinary law-abiding citizens must start spending their good money on legal advice to take out an injunction against somebody who is literally breaching the peace.
The sad thing is that the youth next door would probably be eligible for legal aid. The lady's solicitor did what a wise solicitor should do in the circumstances—he advised her not to go down that route, as the youth would have unlimited resources with which to contest the injunction, while she would be using up her valuable savings. It is absolutely right that we should tackle the matter. We do not expect the police to apply to the court for an injunction to stop somebody exceeding the speed limit, so why do we expect little old ladies to spend their savings to stop someone breaching the peace?

Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the few drawbacks of the right-to-buy legislation is that a property bought with hard-earned savings and a mortgage may be next door to a property that has not been bought? That is particularly true with blocks of flats. A tenant can then arrive at a property that is still owned by a local authority or housing association and make all the noise under the sun, thereby severely prejudicing the peace and happiness of the people who bought the next-door property and blighting the property so much that it becomes unsaleable.

Mr. Jenkin: I agree with my hon. Friend. When properties are bought, the undertakings on noise and the countervailing pressures on tenants by a landlord are transferred. It should be easier for a landlord—whether social or council—to deal with people who are disrupting the peace. Surely there is less of a duty on a public housing authority to provide long-term accommodation for somebody who is not prepared to play by the rules or to fit in with the local community. It should be easier for councils to evict tenants who have breached the covenanted undertakings about noise that they made when they moved in.
I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, which ultimately depends on the interpretation of the courts. My authority, Colchester, argues that there is little purpose in applying for court orders to evict noisy tenants from premises, because magistrates tend to support the right of residence of the tenant rather than the rights of the other tenants and residents.
We have been dealing with the minutiae and the technical detail of the Bill, but I would like to take a step back in my last few comments.
This is an important piece of social legislation. In some respects, it is the equivalent of the Clean Air Act 1956, under which individuals who were polluting the


environment to the detriment of the common good were told that they could no longer do so. It was a good piece of Tory legislation. We want a clean airwaves Act, if that is the correct term. We want to be able to have around us clean sound, not sound pollution—to that extent, the Bill is important.
I would go further: we are living in a society in which people have more and more rights and are more capable of indulging themselves. People are increasingly brought up to express their own aspirations and emotions, and there is less discipline in schools. People are less encouraged to have regard, for their immediate neighbours, and they have more technical means of inflicting their indulgences on others. If people abuse their rights, it must be the duty of the law to take those rights away. It is the duty of the law to ensure that it protects those who live in the community considerately, in co-operation with others, and who abide by what we would regard as social norms.
I plead with the House to make the Bill as effective as possible, so that decent people receive protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North said that he did not want the Bill to be a killjoy Bill. I hope that it will wipe the smirks off the faces of some of the selfish people in society.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution to the Second Reading debate. Before welcoming the Bill, I should like to join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on choosing this as the subject of his private Member's Bill, following his success in the ballot. I also congratulate him on the clear and concise way in which he outlined the Bill to the House this morning. My hon. Friend deserves our congratulations and thanks. For my part, I fully associate myself with all the comments that have been made about the reasons for my hon. Friend's absence earlier. I extend my sympathy to him on that account.
The Government welcome the Bill, which is an important piece of legislation. We take on board the general welcome that has been extended to it in speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves), for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and for Newark (Mr. Alexander), as well as the hon. Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox), for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I note, too, that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), who speaks for the Opposition, extended a broad welcome to the Bill. The measure has been debated in a good and constructive way and has had a well-deserved general welcome.
The Government recognise the extreme distress that can be caused by domestic noise, particularly at night. We also recognise the potential cost to the country of the lost sleep, illness and disrupted lives that result from such noise. Today, we have heard many examples of individual suffering. I hope that the Bill will help people who suffer from the problem, especially noise at night.
I am thinking of people such as the residents of Clare road in Greenford, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred in his opening speech. Those

residents have suffered from loud music, noisy parties and six months of sleepless nights. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford mentioned constituents whose cases he has taken up, including Viki Harrold and Daisy Clement. In particular, he has vigorously taken up the case of Val Gibson, the founder of the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign.
At present, local authorities have a range of powers to abate noise nuisance in premises, including land, and from vehicles, machinery and equipment in streets, but it has become increasingly apparent that the controls on domestic noise are not working as well as they might.
The number of complaints to local authorities in England and Wales about noise from domestic premises continues to rise steadily. In 1993–94, there were more than 130,000 such complaints—more than a threefold increase over the previous decade. That concern is reflected by the large number of letters received by my Department asking that more be done to address the problem.
One of the themes that has emerged in the debate is that it has been the general experience of hon. Members that the number of complaints that come to them is rising. That was said my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. That demonstrates the extent and prevalence of the problem, especially in urban areas such as Hendon, South, where residents in tower blocks are particularly affected.
Another theme has been that noise is a widespread problem that can have tragic consequences, as we heard in graphic detail from my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge. He spoke of the disproportionate and violent response in some instances. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke in similar vein, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. They made clear the tragic consequences that can stem from noise.
Noise can come from many sources. We have heard about a wide variety of noises, from Nepalese bagpipes to the problems caused by riddling, but hon. Members have come back to the problem of noise from loud music, especially amplified noise and noise from musical equipment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) took us back to the era of flower power, which I had not previously associated with him. It was a trip of some nostalgia. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North showed a commendable knowledge of modern music and broadened my knowledge of rap, jungle, techno and hardcore, the latter three of which I have not come across before. I look forward to hearing more about them. He made the valuable point that one man's music is another man's noise. We need to be thoughtful and considerate about our tastes in music, and especially about the volume at which it is played.
It is fair to say that many young people who listen to those sorts of noise are considerate and do not cause problems. Many of our constituents enjoy such music peaceably and thoughtfully, but there are those who are not reasonable or neighbourly and, above all, not considerate. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford made a valuable point in talking about thoughtlessness. That is the common denominator of much of the problem of noise. If neighbours would think of other neighbours, possibly by extending invitations to


parties, they might overcome some of the problems. Sometimes, neighbours are not prepared to be reasonable or accept mediation. There need to be actions that can be taken and powers for local authorities to deal with the serious problems of domestic noise nuisance.
The Bill would give local environmental health officers additional powers to deal with the problem. It takes forward part of the Government's response to the recommendations and proposals of the working party set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) in October 1994. The resultant consultation paper, issued in March last year, was the subject of widespread positive comment.
The Bill establishes for the first time a noise offence based on an objective standard that will apply to noise from domestic premises during night hours between 11 pm and 7 am. I will answer the other points made by the hon. Member for Deptford in due course, but she asked about the level of permitted noise. While this is the Second Reading of a private Member's Bill, the Government take the view that an appropriate level for the permitted level of noise—the expression used in the Bill—would be 35 dB. That standard is appropriate because it is objective and based on World Health Organisation guidance on the levels of noise that are consistent with preserving the restorative process of sleep. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam who so rightly said that we all need a decent night's sleep. That is very important in the context of this Bill.
The broader points about noise outside the defined hours are also important—for example, taking into account the interests of people with young families and babies and of shift workers. One hopes that those responsible for noise will be considerate about such people outside night-time hours, but the Bill is limited to those hours.
We have debated what the hours should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford said that resistance was low at night. He took the view that 11 pm to 7 am were the key hours. Other hon. Members have suggested that 10 pm would be an appropriate starting point. No doubt those are matters that can be visited in Committee, but the important point is that people are entitled to a good night's sleep. The Bill will protect people from noise at night.

Mr. Jenkin: Is my hon. Friend averse to extending the powers in the Bill to the whole day? Often, noise from neighbours during the day is just as irritating and stressful as that at night.

Mr. Clappison: The Bill focuses on the problem of night-time noise. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the many other legislative measures that deal with noise pollution and general anti-social conduct. He has certainly made a valuable point, however.
A local authority will be able to offer documentary evidence to a court that, despite a warning, the permitted noise level continued to be breached after environmental health officers had gone into action. Their measurements will be based on an objective standard, rather than the subjective judgments that apply under the statutory law of nuisance with which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey familiarised the House.
In addition to the usual option of prosecution, a local authority will be able to operate a fixed-penalty scheme for night-time noise. The Bill initially sets the fixed penalty at £40. I have heard the views, expressed on both sides of the House, about whether that is an adequate sum. That is certainly a matter that will arise again during the passage of the Bill. I remind hon. Members that the fixed penalty is provided as an immediate sanction—one that could be an immediate remedy for many cases of neighbour noise.
Further measures can be taken in other instances, particularly in cases of gross or persistent domestic noise. The Government agree that, in those cases, the option must remain for prosecution through the courts. The maximum fine for the offence is to be set at level 3, which is at present £1,000. That reflects the seriousness with which the problem of noise should be viewed.
The Bill also contains the important power for local authorities to seize noise-making equipment that has been used in commission of an offence, under either the night noise offence or the existing noise nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. From responses to our working party consultation paper, the Government are aware that that clarification of existing powers relating to confiscation has the overwhelming backing of local authority practitioners. Judging by some of the comments made in the debate, it also has a broad welcome in the House. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and some of my hon. Friends, spoke of the need for tough measures to deal with noise. Confiscation would certainly fit the bill.
The hon. Member for Deptford extended the legislation a general welcome. She mentioned resources for local authorities. She should bear in mind the fact that approximately one third of all local authorities already have a night noise complaints service. There are examples of successful services, and our calculation of the additional costs that she said were likely to be incurred is based on a gradual take-up of the powers by other local authorities. That is the way in which the costs will arise.
She said that she wanted a mandatory scheme. She listened to an intervention in which I pointed out the way in which the scheme can be adapted under the present legislation. She also took a very acute intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North about leaving such matters to the discretion of local authorities. She will have to deal with that issue. It is important for local authorities to examine the problems in their areas and to decide the appropriate level of service.

Ms Ruddock: I think that the Minister should be referred, if he has not already seen it, to the report issued yesterday by the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection, which stated that, based on the society's contact with and survey of local authorities on this Bill and on this issue, 70 per cent. of local authorities have said that they cannot properly and effectively deal with noise nuisance because they lack resources.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady is treading into the territory of advocating additional spending. The problem with her plan for a mandatory scheme is that there may be additional spending in authorities that have decided that such a scheme is not appropriate for them, and result in their incurring the expense of the scheme. That would


mean fewer resources for other authorities, which are bound by the same public expenditure constraints. She will know that many authorities, particularly in urban areas, provide a satisfactory noise level response service.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister would help the House if he told us which authorities in England and Wales have no one suffering from noise nuisance at night which should be dealt with by the new provision in the Bill.

Mr. Clappison: That is a matter for local democracy. It is for local authorities to decide, by listening to their residents, what level of noise they think is appropriate. It may be that all authorities will wish to participate in the scheme; we do not know. The Government are leaving it to the authorities to decide. The hon. Lady is, first, taking away the opportunity for local authorities to offer the service. Secondly, she would spend additional money to deliver the service in areas that may not consider it appropriate. The hon. Lady must face that problem.
We should like local authorities to examine the noise problem seriously. If they think that it is a problem, we would encourage them to find methods of best practice. We shall certainly do what we can to disseminate best practice and professional guidance and to adopt a graduated service standard that will clearly identify the appropriate type of service.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford and other hon. Members raised the issue of police involvement. She will know that that issue was also examined by the working party, and that how the police will work alongside environmental health officers is an important question. She will also know that there are many excellent examples of good local liaison between environmental health officers and the police. We want to encourage those informal arrangements by supporting the representative bodies in drawing up a code of practice on effective liaison between the agencies. The police will, of course, continue to have responsibility to support local authority staff where there is a threat to public order. However, the judgment as to what level of support is required is an operational matter for the police. It is clearly an interesting and important issue, to which hon. Members have drawn attention.
The hon. Lady also asked a question about the destination of the fines that will be imposed under the system. I can tell her that the fixed penalty under this scheme, in effect, will substitute for court fines. As with other court fines, local authorities will not receive the fines, because they will have been set by the courts. The situation is not the same as with, for example, parking tickets, because, as the hon. Lady knows, they have been decriminalised. We are taking the noise problem seriously. It can be dealt with by fines in the courts and, as I have already said, they can be very substantial.
The hon. Lady and other hon. Members asked what types of noise can be investigated. The Bill, as it is currently drafted, is very wide-ranging in relation to that question. There may be problems in relation to certain types of noise, but many sources of noise will be investigable. If she examines the Bill, she will see that it is aimed at the equipment that causes the noise. That must be a matter of judgment in each case. Such equipment could certainly include tapes, records, compact discs and do-it-yourself equipment. Perhaps the Committee will want to examine that point further.
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) mentioned vehicle noise—

Ms Ruddock: And barking dogs.

Mr. Clappison: And barking dogs—dogs that barked in the night as the caravan passed on.
Noise from vehicles is covered by legislation that has recently come into effect. I refer the hon. Lady to regulations and the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993. If the hon. Lady examines the fairly wide definitions of dwellings and their surroundings, she will find that some instances of vehicle noise may be covered.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the Bill is granted a Second Reading, will the Minister ask his officials to consider the question of vehicles on private land? This is where the problem usually arises, but private land is not covered by existing legislation.

Mr. Clappison: I hope that I am not going into too much detail, and I appreciate that there are many matters still to be debated in Committee, but the Bill has been warmly received, and I am sure that, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, it will benefit many people in the real world who suffer from the problem. The Government warmly welcome the Bill, and I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North on introducing it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to say a few words in reply to the debate. I thank you, your predecessor in the Chair and the House for the indulgence granted me this morning, as I was spending time with my constituency community on a most poignant, sad and important occasion. I am very grateful to everyone.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who so kindly kept watch for me and provided me with an admirable briefing on the debate. It is clear that the Committee stage will be extremely important, as my hon. Friend the Minister said. I am grateful to him for the comprehensive points that he made in picking up matters raised today.
I am also grateful for the consistent support of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and note that he would like the relevant time to be brought forward from 11 pm to 10 pm. This is something that will have to be debated, but we can come back to it. I am also grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), who asked whether dogs barking in a garden will be covered. My hon. Friend just responded to that question and said that that difficulty is already dealt with under existing legislation, so the Bill cannot be extended to cover it.
I understand that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would put people in cells if they made too much noise. Clearly, the mood of the House is very tough, and rightly so. My hon. Friends have spoken in a similarly forceful way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) was anxious that the Bill should be tough and thought that offences committed under the Bill would


be only civil offences. I assure him that the offences detailed in the Bill will be criminal in nature. That is an important point, and I hope that it gives him some reassurance.
I was sorry to miss the distinction between accidental noise and deliberate noise that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves). That is important, but noise is noise whether it is deliberate or accidental. I am sure that we will come back to that issue.
I am also very grateful for the generous support of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) with whom I see eye to eye on animal welfare and other issues. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for his support and I am grateful for the strong support of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, who kept a careful and clear watching brief for me.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) made several points which I have noted. My hon. Friend the Minister has made his response, and we will discuss the hon. Lady's points further in Committee.
I am anxious that the Bill should be capable of being as widely applied as possible if it becomes an Act, as I hope it will. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) drew an analogy between my Bill—and its hoped-for effect—and the Clean Air Act 1956. I agree with that analogy, and my Bill is, like that Act, an attempt at an absolute. My hon. Friend made an inspired point, and we should all bear it in mind.
The advice of the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection suggested measures for preventing noise nuisance. We must remember, for the purpose of the Bill and everything else, that prevention is better than cure. The society's advice included suggestions to site noisy household equipment away from partition walls. It suggests performing noisy DIY jobs during normal working hours when other people are making a noise; apologising to neighbours in advance for disturbance caused by DIY; and telling neighbours in advance about parties and inviting them, and keeping noise to a minimum. It also suggests that, if a dog barks when left alone, arrangements should be made to leave it with a friend. If people do not do that, they might be caught under existing legislation.
I thank the House for an excellent debate, and I hope that it will give my Bill a Second Reading today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Railway Heritage Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of the railways in the development of the country's transport infrastructure. They certainly shaped the landscape of my childhood. I grew up in Bristol, which contains many examples of the work of Isambard Kingdom Brunel. I have many early memories of travelling to London on the Great Western Railway, as we always called it, through the great Box tunnel just outside Bath. I was lucky enough to travel on occasions on the old Bristolian with one of the Castle locomotives pulling the coaches rapidly along.
I remember thinking that I would approve of the advent of the diesel engine as modern technology, but I quickly changed my mind. I believe that many, like me, have great affection for the age of steam and the history of our railways. The influence of the railways on our nation goes far deeper than just the landscape. One has to think only of the Duke of Wellington's anxiety that railways would encourage
the lower orders to go uselessly wandering about the country
to realise the enormous social change that has been brought by the railways, in other countries as well as ours. Those of us who are aficionados of the Western movie will clearly understand that.
As a history graduate, I believe strongly in the importance of learning from the past. To do that effectively, we must ensure that historic materials are preserved and made available to the public so that it is possible for our children to learn about the railways and their great contribution to our industrial revolution.
Governments of all political parties have been aware for some time of the need to ensure the conservation of our railway heritage.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Does my hon. Friend agree that interest in the railway heritage is part of a wider interest in transport heritage'? If any museum shows old ships or ship models, old bicycles, old cars, old aircraft, old engines or old carriages, those displays have a tremendous appeal for the young, and always will do. That interest should be fostered and encouraged, and that is why my hon. Friend's Bill should be supported in every possible way.

Mr. Robinson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for his intervention. At this late stage, it may be difficult to extend the scope of the Bill to the preservation of other parts of our transportation heritage. My hon. Friend's extremely good point is borne in mind by all those who have a great affection for the railways.
Section 114 of the Transport Act 1968 transferred responsibility for British Railways Board's historic artefacts and certain of its records to the then Department of Education and Science. In 1975, the national railway museum was opened in York on the site of the former London and North East Railway museum in what was once the York north motive power depot, to house those artefacts and records.


I look forward to visiting the constituency of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), who has registered his support for the Bill. For reasons connected with his advice surgeries, however, he is unable to be with us today. I certainly look forward to taking up an invitation to visit the national railway museum. If the Bill is successful in passing into law, I hope to deposit a copy of the Act at the museum.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: While touring the north, perhaps my hon. Friend would like to come to my constituency to visit Wylam in Northumberland, the birthplace of the locomotive. One of the great disputes in history surrounds who built the first locomotive. Wylam is the birthplace of George Stephenson. Although he is often credited with building the first locomotive, it was built by a local shipowner, William Hedley. If records had been properly kept, that mystery could have been cleared up many years ago.

Mr. Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My knowledge of railway history has just been significantly improved. If I have time, and my hon. Friend is in his constituency, I will be delighted to come and learn a little bit more on my way north.
The need to preserve our railway heritage was not forgotten in the privatisation legislation, because section 125 of the Railways Act 1993 extended the protection of railway artefacts and records to those owned by the new public sector bodies set up under that Act. Under that section, the Railway Heritage Committee was created in 1994, with the function of designating artefacts or records as worthy of preservation and ensuring that they go to the appropriate collecting institution at the end of their working lives. The committee consists of individuals who are respected in the working railway and railway heritage communities.
The committee has done some worthwhile work. For example, it has designated the Railtrack collection of Brunel-era drawings between 1883 and 1859. That collection comprises more than 7,000 drawings of original Great Western Railway structures, many of them by IKB himself, and bearing his signature. Classed as working drawings, many are still in use and are regularly consulted by Railtrack engineers. A programme of restoration is under way and a feasibility study is now in process to determine whether additional funds can be found to speed up that programme and make the collection available for public inspection.
Also designated is the famous Gooch centrepiece—which has nothing to do with the great man who recently occupied the crease at many of our test match grounds. In 1837, Brunel appointed Sir Daniel Gooch, then aged 21, as the GWR's first locomotive superintendent. He was living proof that one could rise to the top, because, although he resigned in 1864, he soon returned as chairman of the board. In 1872, the shareholders voted him an honorarium of 5,000 guineas, from which the centrepiece, which has a triangular base, was commissioned. At each corner of the centrepiece sits a sculptured figure—I. K. Brunel, George Stephenson and Joseph Locke. Artefacts from the royal train—among other things—are currently being considered for designation.
The powers of the committee, and the excellent work that it has carried out, are in danger of coming to an abrupt end when the companies that own railway artefacts and

records are privatised. When the Railways Bill was in another place, Ministers undertook to bring forward a voluntary scheme to extend the heritage regime to the private sector. I understand that that is no longer considered a viable option. The Bill will ensure the protection of those artefacts and records that are leaving the protection of the Railways Act as their owners pass into the private sector.
I pay tribute to the chairman and members of the Railway Heritage Committee, who have given the Bill so much support. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister and to his civil servants at the Department of Transport, who have also taken a keen interest in this matter. Their advice in helping to frame the legislation has been most useful. I am grateful that they were prepared to listen to members of the Railway Heritage Committee and to incorporate their thoughts and observations into the Bill.
The Bill deals with moveable items, artifacts and records, rather than buildings and permanent structures. Buildings and permanent structures are protected by planning legislation. Brunel's train sheds at Temple Mead are grade 1 listed. Hon. Members will be aware that the Railway Heritage Trust does an excellent job in funding and carrying out preservation work on such structures.
The owners of artefacts and records that are covered by the Bill will inherit the British Railways Board's property under the restructuring of the railway industry, as a consequence of the Railways Act 1993. The Bill makes a number of changes, which reflect the different requirements of a scheme involving private sector operators.
I shall outline how the regime will work in practice. When a body to which the Bill applies wishes to dispose of a designated artefact or record, it will be required to notify the committee of the intended recipient and the terms of the disposal. If the committee is unhappy with either the intended recipient or the terms, it can direct the body to offer the item to a different person, on different terms, or both.
The body making the disposal will be able to do so only with the committee's consent or under the terms directed by the committee, but the committee has to make up its mind in six months, after which the disposing body can act freely. I believe that to be a reasonable stipulation.
If the committee determines terms for the disposal, the people to whom the object is offered have to act within six months. All other such disposals under the Bill would be void. Making disposals in contravention of the Bill void should act as a deterrent and reduce the likelihood of dishonest dealings. That is why I have felt that it would be inappropriate to introduce criminal sanctions into the Bill.
I pay tribute to those who devote so much of their lives to preserve old steam locomotives, carriages and the like. Indeed, this week, I had the opportunity to visit Cranmore railway station in my constituency, where I saw the painstaking work that was being done on the Nunney Castle, which is one of the Castle class steam locomotives. In the 1980s, I represented the constituency of Newport, West. Extraordinarily enough, I found one of my former constituents, whom I knew well at the time, on top of the engine busily polishing its engine and getting it ready for tomorrow. As part of its commissioning, tomorrow, it will set off on a journey to Plymouth, which


will take the weekend, and then return to Cranmore the following weekend, hopefully having given much pleasure to many people—as it will continue to do.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to give guidance to the committee. That guidance will be used to set out the compensation and dispute regulations and to give helpful advice on how to word directions so that they may be legally binding.
In order to be effective in its task of preserving railway artefacts and records, the legislative framework must recognise the interests of the working railway. It is essential that the working railway should work in partnership with the railway heritage community in the preservation, for future generations, of railway artefacts and records. I believe that the provisions of the Bill will meet that need.
When an item is transferred from a private sector body to a collecting institution, in accordance with the direction of the committee, and the collecting institution pays market value compensation to that body, the committee would not be able to direct the owner to dispose of an item in a way different from that which the owner wishes—for instance, to lease when he wishes to sell or vice versa. For the further protection of the owners, the committee would be required to consent to a proposed disposal if it does not object, rather than just sit on it until its power to direct expires after six months. If the committee failed to notify the owner of the designated artefact or record of the designation, that owner would be free to dispose of that item.
Of course, it is necessary to ensure that working records and artefacts are not in danger of compulsory transfer to museums. To that end, transfers of equipment between owners covered by the Bill—which would, before April 1994, have been BR internal transfers—and disposals in accordance with transfer schemes under part II of the Railways Act 1993, would not require a direction from the committee.
I believe that the Bill will act as an important fail-safe in the task of preserving our railway heritage. One of the delights of our railway heritage is the work of individuals and organisations who voluntarily ensure that museums, such as that in York, make such a contribution to the history of our railways. By doing so, they demonstrate to the younger generation just how important our railways have been to the development of Britain's economic prosperity.
We can travel around many parts of our country and come across preserved and special railways. Indeed, I did so only last summer, when I had the pleasure of travelling on the Blaenau Ffestiniog railway with my family. That railway, together with the East Somerset and West Somerset railways, are to be commended to any hon. Members who are thinking of doing something a little different in the coming summer recess. Certainly, for those of us with young children it is a delight to travel on the railways and to see the enthusiasm of the people who run them and the care that is taken to ensure that these magnificent engines and their carriages are restored to such a remarkable condition.
I know that many hon. Members who spend many years in the House are never successful in the private Member's ballot. I feel fortunate for having been successful and for having this opportunity to try to contribute to the

preservation work on our railways. I commend the Bill to the House. I hope that it will pass all its stages, go into another place and eventually become law.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) on choosing the subject of the Bill, and I am grateful to him for his generous reference to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley), who has put much effort into achieving the ends that the Bill embraces.
My only possible disagreement with the Bill is over what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said about there not being any need for criminal sanctions. Given some of the people to whom the Government appear willing to sell our railways, criminal sanctions might not be a bad idea. Compared with systematic ticket fraud or stashing away a few million pounds for after the success of a management buy-out, flogging a few artefacts on the side might seem a relatively minor offence.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I deliberately tried to keep the politics of change in the railways out of my speech. When I visited Cranmore station, it was mentioned to me that one of the advantages of privatisation, which is already apparent, is that people are thinking up new ideas and new ways in which to improve our railways, which I am sure is for the good.

Mr. Wilson: Let us leave it at that. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that sounds like a pious hope rather than a firm commitment.
One cannot entirely leave politics out of the debate, because the Bill is a necessary tidying-up measure as a consequence of rail fragmentation for privatisation. If the railways were not being fragmented for privatisation, there would be no need for the Bill.
The alternative to the Bill, however, as I am sure the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome would agree, is unthinkable. If no safeguard were built into rail privatisation legislation, the history of our railways would be scattered to the four winds, which is certainly not acceptable. Indeed, it would be a tragedy to compound the other tragedies unfolding in our railway network. There must be measures to stop people who, if uncontrolled, might be prepared to sell the railway family silver and other valuables.
We are not only dealing with knick-knacks. For instance, Railtrack owns many historic documents such as the Brunel drawings—the original working plans for the Great Western railway, signed by Brunel and still kept at Swindon—as well as artefacts such as signal boxes and items of signalling equipment. There is much valuable material, and not only in the monetary sense. Much of it is recognised as of intrinsic value by everybody who is interested in this country's extraordinary railway history. We do not want Railtrack to be privatised, and I do not expect it to be, but if it were, it would be an additional public scandal if it gained untrammelled possession of those artefacts.
It is as well to keep some control of the more ancient parts of our railway network, and not only for historic reasons. I was interested in a story in last Sunday's Wales on Sunday that described the return of "ancient trains" to the rails. It said:
On the Rhymney Valley line, a 35-year-old train from … Watermans Railways company travels the route from Mondays to Fridays. The Class 47 diesel engine, normally used on special trips, is known as Davies the Ocean.
So, in our wonderful new railway system, the engine has been brought back into service for regular passenger use.
On the south Wales to Birmingham route, passengers
found themselves on a train leased back from a railway preservation company in Lancashire.
A spokesman for the train leasing companies went as far as to say:
A lot of people actually like travelling on the old rolling stock.
They may do if they choose to, but whether they want to turn up for their normal commuter train and find that it has been replaced by one that the bold, new, fragmented railway company has hired from a rail preservation company because there is no new rolling stock in the country is another matter. I repeat, the spokesman, effectively for the Government, said:
A lot of people actually like travelling on the old rolling stock.
However, Cardiff resident Nick Lewis, who travelled between Cardiff and Newport on Sunday, said:
I couldn't believe it when this ancient train trundled into the station. It was an absolute disgrace to go back 40 years in time to travel in this dilapidated and decrepit train.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): No sense of history.

Mr. Wilson: As the Minister says, that shows no sense of history. However, he would probably prefer to choose when he travels on 40-year-old trains hired from rail preservation societies and when he travels on rather more modern rolling stock. The point is that it is not just a matter of keeping old railway artefacts to put them into museums. There is the problem that, in the new set-up, the museums will be raided to keep the railways running at all.
As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, the railway industry in this country has a long and honourable history, with its origins in the 18th-century coal mining industry. Earlier, hon. Members discussed which was the first locomotive. There are many contenders for the title of first railway in the United Kingdom. The first railway sanctioned by Parliament was the Surrey iron railway from Wandsworth to Croydon in 1801. The first Scottish line authorised by Act of Parliament was the Kilmarnock and Troon railway of 1808, which opened in 1812 and linked collieries at Kilmarnock to Troon harbour. There is no truth in the rumour that Jimmy Knapp was on board. The line operated with a steam locomotive and carried passengers as well, several years before the Stockton and Darlington railway in 1825, which is usually credited with being the first public steam railway in Britain.
The railways laid the foundations of much of the modern British economy and were one of the more important British developments. Railways were then adopted around the world. British and especially Scottish railway engineers took their expertise to the railways of south America, India and Australia, as well as Europe.
It is understandable that the passionate devotion of many in Britain to the railway should extend to an interest in preserving its past. There are 35 preserved steam railways listed in the British Rail timetable and dozens of museums dedicated to the history of the railways. Many people devote weekends, holidays and retirement to restoring railway equipment and sharing it with the public, who have a huge interest in our railway heritage.
Regardless of questions of ownership—I do not think that my views on that can be mistaken—it is right to have in place a properly ordered procedure for the identification and protection of historic railways. The Bill is therefore welcome. The real tragedy in our railway system is that we are now approaching 1,000 days since an order was placed in this country for new railway rolling stock. Let us therefore treasure what was given to us in the past, while bitterly regetting what is being done to our railway network and our railway rolling stock in the present.
The operations of the proposed committee must be rigid. I can see the point in a six-month time bar after which the owners can do what they like. However, that suggests potential loopholes, and it must be absolutely clear that the availability of the artefacts is notified, publicly known and considered at an early stage by the committee, and the committee's conclusions should be well known, certainly within the railway world. We do not want to find that, somehow or other, certain disposals have slipped through before anyone noticed. In Committee, we should consider ways in which to tighten up the procedures so that they guard against that eventuality.
In many instances, we are dealing with objects of considerable value, not just in the national market, but in the international market. Let us ensure that they are properly protected.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) on having introduced this important Bill. I also welcome the support of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). We do not often agree on railway matters, but I am glad that we can at least agree on this one. However, I shall not let the hon. Gentleman tempt me towards some of the more controversial aspects of the railways. Perhaps the Hansard record of some of our rather more spirited exchanges on privatisation should form part of the record of the history of privatisation—but I shall say no more about that today.
As the Minister responsible for railways, I am well aware of the importance of and fascination for railway heritage. My hon. Friend has already touched on its value to future generations and to historians. On a more practical note, it is vital for the railway that artefacts and records of historical significance are preserved, so that the industry can benefit from the lessons of the past.
Historic railway records can be surprisingly relevant to the running of the railways today. Indeed, Railtrack still has about 7,000 engineering drawings from the Brunel era. They have not been placed in a museum, because, as my hon. Friend has explained, they are still in use as working records.
The need to ensure the preservation of Britain's railway heritage was taken into account during the passage of the Railways Act 1993, by the creation of the Railway


Heritage Committee, an independent committee of experts from railway heritage interests and from the railways industry, to ensure that historically significant railway artefacts and records went to the appropriate collecting institution at the end of their useful lives and became available to a wider public. I must take this opportunity to join my hon. Friend in applauding the work done by that committee.
The committee's powers under the Railways Act extended to the British Railways Board, and to the new public sector bodies due to come into being as part of the restructuring process. Now many of BR's successors are entering the private sector, and thus leaving the scope of the existing heritage provisions, which means that new arrangements have to be made.
Ministers recognised while the Railways Bill was in another place that it would in time be necessary to extend the heritage provisions to the private sector. As my hon. Friend said, there was then a proposal to introduce a voluntary scheme, but on closer examination that proposal proved inappropriate, and we decided that legislation for a statutory scheme was necessary.
I must thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on the timeliness of his Bill. It will reinforce the powers of the Railway Heritage Committee and enable it to carry out its work more effectively, by giving it power to require information from owners of records and artefacts and by allowing it to delegate to sub-committees. The power to require information from owners is important, and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North touched upon that aspect. We can ensure that those important records and artefacts are protected only if we know of their existence, and of any proposal to dispose of them.
There may be a gap between privatisation of some of the major owners of railway artefacts and records and the enactment of the Bill. I understand that that may cause concern, but I can assure the House that transfer to private ownership does not mean that objects will be lost to the nation. It has already been mentioned that Railtrack is one of the major owners of such records and artefacts, and I have discussed the matter with the chairman of Railtrack. I have his personal assurance that, as one of the principal owners of railway records, Railtrack will continue to work positively with the Railway Heritage Committee after privatisation. Indeed, Railtrack's solicitor is a member of the Committee and fully supports its work.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the chairman of Railtrack, too, is what is colloquially known as a bit of railway buff, and will therefore support the Bill containing the measures outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome?

Mr. Watts: Yes, I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Indeed, I would expect many railway companies moving into the private sector still to want to make records and artefacts available to collecting institutions at nominal cost, as the nationalised railway has done. They will do that to show their support and good faith, and their commitment to both the future and the past of the railway.

Mr. Wilson: On the subject of good faith, if the owners or inheritors of the artefacts set a price upon them, will

the purchasing body be given any financial support, as there is likely to be a different level of commercial transaction involved than at present?

Mr. Watts: I am not sure whether the private sector owners will necessarily want to get full the commercial value for the items that they seek to dispose of, but I shall refer to the way in which we propose to use the Secretary of State's power of guidance to indicate the values that we would expect to be set.
My hon. Friend has said that the Bill provides for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the committee, and I should perhaps explain why that power is necessary and how it would be exercised. It is essential that private sector owners of designated records and artefacts be compensated at market value if the committee directs disposal of those items. But the British Railways Board is happy to continue to transfer records and artefacts to the national railway museum, the Public Record Office, the Scottish Record Office and other collecting institutions, either free or for a nominal charge.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Royal Commission on historical manuscripts—of which I am a member—is consulted on the disposal of all archives? Will he also recommended that, where possible, artefacts should be transferred to the science museum's department at York, a marvellous and incomparable railway museum?

Mr. Watts: Indeed. Most of these records have in the past been passed to the railway museum in York, and we intend that that should continue. I shall look further into the point that my hon. Friend makes about the royal commission.
It would not be right to obstruct such a mutually beneficial arrangement between the British Railways Board and the collecting institutions, and it would be wrong for us to make one provision in the Bill for the public sector and another for the private sector, as I am advised that that might hybridise the Bill. I am also responsible for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, and I think that one hybrid Bill at a time is quite enough. The guidance would deal with that problem.
The market value compensation for private sector bodies would be arrived at through agreement between the owner and the collecting institution. Clearly they will not always agree, and the guidance will therefore need to make provision for disputes. We envisage recourse to arbitration under those circumstances. If the parties failed to agree on an arbiter, the president of the Institute of Arbiters would be asked to choose one. The guidance would cover those matters. In addition, the guidance will assist the committee in drafting directions.
I understand that there may be some concern that giving the Secretary of State the power to provide guidance to the committee would undermine its independence. I must stress that it is not our intention to dictate to the committee which artefacts and records should be preserved. Even if the Secretary of State were to give such guidance, the committee would merely be obliged to have regard to it, not to follow it.
A summary of the matters to be covered in the guidance is set out in more detail in the notes on clauses for this Bill, copies of which are available from the Vote Office


and have been placed in the Library. I am aware of the public interest in the actual contents of the guidance and I can confirm that, when it has been fully worked up, it will be published and copies placed in the Library.
Railway heritage may be primarily concerned with the past but, as I said earlier, it is highly relevant to the future. I am confident that privatisation will bring considerable improvements in the running of the railway, and innovations that will be of interest to future generations. I am therefore very keen to ensure that the records of such an exciting period in railway history and the innovations that will be encouraged by the introduction of private sector disciplines will be preserved for the nation.
I warmly encourage my hon. Friend to visit the national railway museum and to deposit a copy of his Bill there. I am sure that he would be welcomed there and would enjoy his visit. The Bill is supported on both sides of House and is clearly very much in the public interest. I commend it whole-heartedly to the House, and invite the House to give it a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

TOBACCO PROMOTION (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND RESTRICTION OF PROMOTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a rumour circulating the Palace of Westminster that a device has been found under the car of an hon. Member. I hasten to add that it is rumour, and that the device was not found within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. Will you use your good offices and those of Madam Speaker to circulate warnings to hon. Members so that we can all be on the alert this weekend?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I should have thought hon. Members would be aware of the position already.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you use your offices to encourage Madam Speaker to ask the Leader of the House to come to the Chamber today to make a statement about what he proposes to do to increase security in the Palace of Westminster? In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has just said, it seems that hon. Members should know, as a matter of urgency, that they are being properly protected.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. John Carlisle: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with the point of order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time now, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is this a different point of order?

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, it is on a different subject. I am a little concerned that the business that is to follow the business that we have been discussing, and which we have just accepted, is the result of a ten-minute Bill. Other hon. Members have Bills that came up in the ballot for private Member's Bills. A ten-minute Bill appears to have almost jumped the queue—perhaps you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could give me some guidance on that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman some guidance straight away. It is a bogus point of order, of which I take a dim view. I now put the Question on the tobacco promotion Bill.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time on Friday 22 March.

WATER CHARGES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall deal with the previous Bill first. I moved it "now"—I hope that that was on the record. I understand that it was not able to be taken—

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any points of order from the hon. Gentleman now.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I moved my Bill "now". I understand that an objection was taken to that, so I have now named a date for the Bill to be taken again. I believe that there cannot be any objection to that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on this. I am not taking another point of order on that issue.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On the second Bill, which has just been called by the learned Clerk, with the leave of the Member whose Bill it is, I wish to move the Bill now.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time on Friday 1 March.

WILDLIFE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

—Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFORM) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 1996.

BRITISH TIME (EXTRA DAYLIGHT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 January], That the Bill be read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 1 March.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Luton North

(Mr. Carlisle) raised a point of order in the dying moments of today's sitting. Could you investigate whether the hon. Gentleman should be required, even at that stage, to declare his interest in the Bill? I realise that the subject has just been placed partly within the remit of the Commissioner for Standards, as well as being within your remit and that of Madam Speaker. Two of the hon. Gentleman's interests listed in the Register of Members' Interests appear to be pertinent, and I wonder whether the House and the public should be aware when someone tries to block a Bill, by whatever means. Whatever the interest of the hon. Member concerned, should it not be declared and appear in the record of the debate in the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter with which I can deal. If there are any complaints, I think that they should go to the commissioner.

Mr. John Carlisle: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it should be stated on the record that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has just made that objection, should be accurate in his assessment. It is, of course, for you to judge Madam Deputy Speaker whether he is out of order. Are you satisfied that the accusation that he has just made against me as an individual Member is entirely accurate in terms of my interests in this place?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I made it perfectly clear that I did not regard it as a matter for me, but if an hon. Member felt that there was cause for complaint—about which I did not judge—there was a proper course of action to take. That should settle the matter.

Mr. Carlisle: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Entirely untrue and inaccurate aspersions have been cast which show that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has not kept up to date with the Register of Members' Interests. He has a rather out-of-date copy. When such aspersions, which are without foundation, are cast on an hon. Member's name and character, has he any way. through you, of clearing his name, or does he have sit here accused and unable to say that he is not guilty?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I presume that it will also be open to the hon. Member to make that point to the commissioner.

Mr. Carlisle: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have had enough.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Tuesday 20th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Lilley relating to Social Security, Family Law and Pensions not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Serious Fraud

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Mr. John Marshall: I have raised the question of serious fraud on several occasions in the House. I realise that I cannot refer to individuals who may have been subject to previous prosecutions but who are also subject to current prosecutions.
There are several serious issues which must be considered. First, there is the competence of the Serious Fraud Office. There have been a large number of acquittals in high-profile cases. Secondly, there is the cost of cases to the public purse and the national scandal whereby a number of wide boys have been helped by the legal aid fund. Thirdly, there is a widespread feeling that serious fraud cases are too complicated for the average jury.
We must remember who the victims of serious fraud are. They are frequently the financially unsophisticated—the small man. I remember, at the time of the Dunsdale Securities case, meeting a constituent who told me that he had concentrated all his financial investment in one company, Dunsdale Securities. He had even been persuaded by Mr. Miller, who ran Dunsdale Securities, to increase the mortgage on his house so that he could invest even more money in Dunsdale. He did not realise that the return offered by Dunsdale Securities was far higher than that offered by the gilt-edged securities in which it allegedly invested—so high as to be suspicious.
Similarly, those of us who were in the House at the time of the Barlow Clowes disaster will remember meeting constituents who had put money aside for a rainy day. One constituent had put money into Barlow Clowes to save for school fees. They were the people who suffered because they were not wise enough in the ways of the world and invested in a duff company. More recently, there was the Belling pension fund, about which pensioners suffered worry and concern.
In Sussex, two partners in a firm of solicitors engaged in an £8 million fraud. The victims were the employees of the firm, whose jobs disappeared from under them because it went bankrupt, and honest solicitors throughout the country who had, through the solicitor's compensation fund, to pay out £8 million to the clients of that company. That was all paid for by honest, decent solicitors.
Although the victims may often obtain compensation, as they did eventually in the Barlow Clowes case, the uncertainty before getting it can be fatal. I knew an investor in Dunsdale Securities who got a 7.30 am telephone call to tell him that Dunsdale had gone bust. Within a few days, he had died of a heart attack, which was clearly not unrelated to the worry and concern that he had suffered. While those who suffered as a result of Barlow Clowes were eventually pleased to get compensation, they went through many months of agony about which the perpetrators of the fraud were not concerned.
The other case is one of which I have spoken to my right hon. and learned Friends the Law Officers from time to time. About £59 million was misappropriated, and it was all investors' money. Some of those who suffered were very small investors.
It is not just the fact that small people suffer. The reputation of this country for honest dealing in finance is put at risk when one of these individuals gets away with tens of millions of pounds. Vast sums of money are involved, and the greed and dishonesty that enables people to seek to get away with it beggars belief.
The public have a sense of intense frustration that large sums of money are lost by the victims of fraud. In some of the high-profile cases, many tens of millions of pounds are lost. Many millions are spent on the cases themselves. The Government not only pay the costs of the Serious Fraud Office, but normally help the defendants through legal aid. All that happens—the money has been lost and the costs are paid out—but all too often there is no conviction.
The Serious Fraud Office is nicknamed by some the "seriously flawed office". When Mr. Nadir decided to fly to Cyprus, many people thought that he could have chanced his arm and been prosecuted. He probably would have been at liberty in England now, rather than a prisoner in northern Cyprus.
My interest in this issue was aroused by the Levitt case. I thought that the prosecution by Mr. David Cocks was bungled. He ended up blaming the judge, complaining unsuccessfully about defence counsel and misleading the director of the SFO, the Attorney-General and, indirectly, the House.
Many of us have complaints about the SFO. It has had three directors in its short life. Many question whether its budget is adequate. The Sunday Times recently pointed out that the SFO' s responsibilities have been increased, in that it is now responsible for cases in which the fraud is more than £1 million, whereas previously the threshold was £5 million.
A lawyer called Bob Goldspink—one could not have invented that name—who is a partner at Denton Hall and specialises in major fraud cases, says:
To be the dynamic, fraud-fighting body the country desperately needs, the SFO must be given the resources to hire and train the very best lawyers.
Another lawyer said that the SFO is already woefully under-re sourced.
The SFO has had a mixed record. I wish to thank the Lord Chancellor's Office for answering a question of mine today. In the year 1992–93, there were 21 trials, but in only 12 were all the defendants convicted. In 1993–94, there were 26 trials, but in only 14 were all the defendants convicted. In 1994–95, there were 12 trials, in five of which all the defendants were convicted. In 1995 and to date, there have been nine, in six of which all the defendants were convicted.
The scale of convictions is not always the best guide, however. Mr. Levitt was convicted after plea bargaining, but he did 185 hours of community service—scarcely an adequate penalty in view of the scale of the fraud that he had committed.
Apart from the cost of serious fraud to the individuals concerned, there is a huge cost to the legal aid fund. The wide boys who practise serious fraud are smart enough to transfer their assets before they are charged. In the Levitt case, for example, he was given the legal aid appropriate to a pauper, but he lived in a house worth £750,000 and celebrated the end of the case with champagne and going to the plush boxes of White Hart


lane. Since then, he has moved up market in his housing rather than down. The victims suffered twice over—they lost because they were unsuccessful investors, and they lost again as taxpayers.
It sticks in the gullet of most decent people that villains who have been party to very large frauds can then live the life of Riley, having been helped with legal aid. When they apply for legal aid, they are allegedly penniless, but if they escape conviction they suddenly seem able to live the good life.
One of the most amazing cases was that of Mr. Ernest Saunders, who was always able to get legal aid when fighting his case in the United Kingdom courts. I saw recently that he was taking a case to the European Court' for which, I assume, he is having to pay solicitors but where he is not eligible for legal aid. One wonders whether this man, who at one stage suffered from Alzheimer's disease but discovered that Guinness was a good cure for it, may not occasionally suffer from amnesia when filling out his legal aid application forms.
In 1994, there were 1 million applications for legal aid and 600,000 for criminal legal aid, but only 15 prosecutions for fraudulent claims. Are we being told that the criminal fraternity is honest when claiming legal aid? I cannot believe that. I believe that all too often those who practise serious fraud have salted away their assets, so that, when they are brought to trial they can get legal aid paid for by the taxpayer. I welcome the Lord Chancellor's commitment to ensuring that those who are apparently rich and living in big houses will no longer be eligible for legal aid.
The House may like to know about the growth in expensive legal aid. I have today been given the answer to a question that I tabled to the Lord Chancellor's Department. It shows that, in 1993–94, there were 172 cases in which the cost of legal aid exceeded £100,000. In 1994–95, there were 237 such cases, and so far this year there have been 178. In other words, the cost to the taxpayer is considerable.
Finally, we must consider whether juries are suitable for trying serious fraud cases. The Roskill committee in 1986 recommended that serious fraud cases should be tried not by juries but by a judge and lay assessors. We have to ask whether juries are able to understand very complicated serious fraud cases. One recent case was so complicated that the court heard evidence only in the mornings because the judge thought that it would be too much for the jury to take in evidence in both the morning and the afternoon. The burden on the judge is magnified by the need to explain inherently complicated issues to a jury which may include some more simple people.
I have been told by Law Officers and others that the judges themselves are almost exhausted by the end of some serious fraud trials, because the judge has to understand issues that are foreign to him in his daily life. If complicated fraud trials are sometimes too much for the judges, they are certainly going to be too much for the jurors. Complicated fraud trials frequently last for many months, and I do not believe that the juries in such cases are representative of society as a whole.
In a recent case—the one that I am not allowed to mention in case it prejudges another trial—the potential jurors were asked whether they had any views on X.

For people not to have a view on X meant that they could not have been frequent readers of newspapers. If they are not frequent readers of newspapers, I suggest that they are not typical of the average person.
If the judge had the benefit of lay assessors, accountants, solicitors and lawyers specialising in City matters, instead of trying to explain the almost inexplicable to people who will never again have to deal with such matters, he would have the arcane issues explained to him by technical experts who understand them very much better than he.
I believe that the history of serious fraud cases—such as the Levitt case, the Brent Walker case, the Guinness cases marks 2, 3 and 4, the Blue Arrow case and other high-profile serious fraud cases—shows very strongly that serious fraud is too serious a matter to be left to the normal system of prosecution. Just as we developed the Serious Fraud Office to prosecute, so we need to have a different system to try those cases, because they are far too complicated for the average person to understand.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on obtaining the debate, albeit not at the first time of asking. We had an assignation about 18 months ago in the middle of the night which we were not able to complete. I have listened to his points with interest, and he made them with his usual force and effectiveness.
The debate gives me an opportunity to confirm the Government's view that the Serious Fraud Office plays and will continue to play a successful part in combating and deterring financial fraud. Since the SFO was set up in April 1988, it has developed a unique body of skills and expertise, and I speak as somebody who has appeared as counsel in a number of large and heavy fraud cases over the years.
There is much ill-informed and sometimes malicious comment about the record of the Serious Fraud Office by those who have not taken care to look at the complete picture. Their attack upon it is seriously flawed. The reality is that, rather than being in decline, the Serious Fraud Office is expanding, and it is dealing with an increasing work load. The work load was 50 active cases when the Davie report was received more than a year ago, and the case load is now 64.
What is more, the number of cases in which the SFO is answering requests for assistance from foreign jurisdictions by virtue of the extension of its powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has increased significantly, and has contributed to the effectiveness of the office's work. The number of staff, both professional and support, has increased to accommodate the expansion: 32 new posts have been created, of which 13 have been filled to date. More are to come.
I do not wish to bake old bread and go over cases such as Levitt and Guinness, so I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend to more recent successes. In January this year, Deacon, a solicitor who defrauded business men in an elaborate advance fee fraud, was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment after he had been convicted. His co-defendant, Fuller, received a seven-year sentence. Van der Horst received a


three-year sentence of imprisonment for corruption at the Southampton crown court in January, after he had admitted taking £1.6 million in bribes for ship repair contracts.
Graham Ford, the Sussex solicitor about whose case my hon. Friend spoke, received 10 years' imprisonment in December last year after pleading guilty to stealing £5 million of clients' money. In July last year, Mohammed Naviede, the former chairman of Arrows, was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for an estimated £100 million fraud on international banks. To put the record of the SFO in its true context, it is quite untrue to say that it is a failing or unsuccessful organisation.
In the brief time available to me, I shall deal with the main points that my hon. Friend has raised. It is intrinsic in the prosecution of complex and serious fraud that the investigation will be expensive. There is no avoiding that. The Conservative party, having taken the political step to ensure that serious and complex fraud is prosecuted with energy, has then to will the means of achieving that by voting appropriate sums of money not only for the investigation, but for the subsequent prosecution.
The investigation and prosecution involve the use of private sector firms of accountants on a case-by-case basis, as in the case of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and they involve the employment of extremely experienced Queen's Counsel, again on a case-by-case basis—members of the independent Bar, of high calibre and with appropriate skills and experience to prosecute such cases.
It follows from what I have just said that, if those cases are to be prosecuted effectively, a fair trial requires that the defendants have appropriate representation. There must be equality of arms. It is unrealistic to think that large sums of money can be expended properly in the investigation and prosecution of offences but that justice can be done without appropriate recompense for those instructed to appear on behalf of the defence.
My hon. Friend has referred to the record of the SFO. It has prosecuted 147 cases to date, and convictions have been recorded against 62.3 per cent. of all defendants. In more than 75 per cent. of those cases, at least one defendant, usually the principal defendant, has been convicted. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is an impressive and enviable record. The answer that I have given him today should be taken in its full context.
Criticisms about the amount of legal aid expenditure and whether individuals in particular cases are entitled to the legal representation they receive are easy to make. The Legal Aid Board has at its disposal effective weapons to inquire into whether legal aid has been properly granted or not.
Another complaint from my hon. Friend is that large sums of money disappear, and at the end of the day no one is convicted. That is so in certain circumstances, but I am sure that he would agree that there can be misjudgment, mismanagement and financial catastrophe on a large scale, just as there can be dishonesty on a large scale. The mere fact that there has been a financial catastrophe on a grand scale does not necessarily show that there has been dishonesty.
My hon. Friend's final point related to trial by jury, and he repeated what others have said before him: that

in such trials juries cannot understand the case that is put in front of them. Although many of the cases are by definition complex, it is the execution of fraud that is complex, whereas the central notion and principle behind it is often perfectly simple and can be expressed in a few words.
In 1986, recommendation 82 of the Roskill report stated that trial by jury should be replaced by trial by judge and two lay members. However, Lord Roskill would be the first to acknowledge that, since his report of 10 years ago, immense strides have been taken to improve the presentation of serious and complex fraud cases. The judge in the recent Deacon case, which involved loss to the Belling pension fund, praised its presentation and the use of information technology.
In Serious Fraud Office cases, it is becoming routine—rather than exceptional—for use to be made of information technology. It is used in the retrieval of documentation and in the presentation of graphics to the jury—showing the way in which the fraud operated, often in just a few seconds. Information technology is used so that counsel can highlight, on their screens, the important pieces of evidence, and they are supplied with virtually an instantaneous transcript of the evidence. This is a quantum leap forward in the conduct of such cases.
Before hon. Members repeat the contention that such cases cannot be understood by juries, I invite them to go to the Serious Fraud Office to see a presentation—which I have had the benefit of seeing—that shows how such cases are conducted. I extend that invitation to my hon. Friend, who I am sure will find it interesting and instructive. I suggest that it will cause him to reassess his criticism that juries cannot understand what is going on in those cases. Juries often have a very good nose for fraud. The sole issue before the jury is: what was the defendant's state of mind at the time; was he being dishonest?
There is a case for considering modes of trial other than trial by jury. However, such consideration must be edged with caution and not taken lightly. A number of questions have to be considered, particularly whether any replacement for the judge and jury will be any better than the existing procedure. Very often, when an issue in the case is the jury's perception of banking practice and financial institutions, and whether someone was turning a blind eye to what was going on, its members are remarkably independently placed to form such a judgment. It might not be easy to find people who are willing to sit on fraud panels.
It is also important to consider how to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, justifying a special tribunal for serious and complex fraud cases, and, on the other, not having a similar tribunal for other complicated cases. It is incorrect to believe that the only complicated cases involve fraud—other cases, such as multi-handed robberies and child abuse, are lengthy and may involve a detailed analysis of complicated medical or technical evidence, such as in cases involving manslaughter.
The issue is by no means clear; it requires great thought and examination. Certainly, my hon. Friend could say that there has probably been a shift of view since Roskill reported. Certain people who were then


of the opinion that trial by jury was the only way to try these cases may, with the benefit of further experience, have shifted their view, although I doubt that they have finally come to the conclusion that such change needs to be made and that we must get rid of trial by judge and jury in most cases.
The Government have resolved to re-examine the issue and will do so in a careful and measured way, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already explained to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Three o'clock.